land

Article Evaluation of Soundscapes in Urban Parks in Olsztyn (Poland) for Improvement of Landscape Design and Management

Agnieszka Jaszczak 1,* , Natalia Małkowska 1, Katarina Kristianova 2, Sebastian Bernat 3 and Ewelina Pochodyła 4

1 Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Warmia and Mazury, Prawochenskiego 17, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Architecture and Design, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Namestie slobody 19, 812 45 Bratislava, Slovakia; [email protected] 3 Department of Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Krasnicka 2d, 20-718 Lublin, Poland; [email protected] 4 Department of Water Resources, Climatology and Environmental Management, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Lodzki 2, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Soundscape analyses and noise measurements should be a part of pre-design works involved in planning green areas in city centers. The aim of the study was to conduct a multi- criteria analysis of the soundscape of three parks in Olsztyn (Poland) as a part of the landscape planning process to determine the directions of re-design of places most exposed to noise. The research included: 1. functional and spatial analysis of the park surroundings in reference to the city environment, 2. analysis of the acoustic map, 3. measurements of sound pressure levels (SPL) at selected points in two periods (leafless and leafy), 4. analysis of characteristic sounds, 5. interview with park users and preparation of a mental map. The results of research regarding the perception of the soundscape of all three parks by respondents differ slightly from the results of both the acoustic



 map and SPL measurements. The results also confirm the difference between SPL in the leafless and leafy period. Places most exposed to noise are located at the park boundaries along the main Citation: Jaszczak, A.; Małkowska, N.; Kristianova, K.; Bernat, S.; access roads, and at park entrances. Recommendations and sample solutions are proposed, based on Pochodyła, E. Evaluation of two suggested design activities, namely the reduction of undesirable sounds, and introduction of Soundscapes in Urban Parks in desirable sounds to the parks. Olsztyn (Poland) for Improvement of Landscape Design and Management. Keywords: soundscape; city parks; noise; landscape design; green infrastructure Land 2021, 10, 66. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land10010066

Received: 27 November 2020 1. Introduction Accepted: 10 January 2021 At the end of the 1960’s, Schafer established The World Soundscape Project that Published: 13 January 2021 initiated the development of the interdisciplinary research trend of sound ecology [1–3]. The main intention of the project was to develop solutions aimed at creating or maintaining Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- an ecologically sustainable sound space with consideration of the relationship between the tral with regard to jurisdictional clai- ms in published maps and institutio- sound environment and the community [2,4,5]. nal affiliations. This article draws on the approach of landscape architecture and soundscape. Sound- scape is a key term used in sound ecology. The work of Porteous and Mastin (1985) was devoted to soundscape themes as early as in the 1980s, although the term soundscape was used by Southworth (1969) in a study of urban space in Boston [6,7]. According to Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- international standard ISO 12913-1:2014, it is a perceived physical environment construct, censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. defined as “the acoustic environment as perceived or experienced and/or understood This article is an open access article by a person or people in context” [8]. Acoustic indicators are not sufficient to describe distributed under the terms and con- it, because it results from complex relationships occurring between various sounds and ditions of the Creative Commons At- human auditory perception [9]. As a multidimensional phenomenon, soundscape can- tribution (CC BY) license (https:// not be measured and described exclusively with numbers [10]. It is therefore important creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ to investigate the subjective evaluation of noise nuisance. This requires learning about 4.0/).

Land 2021, 10, 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010066 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2021, 10, 66 2 of 26

people’s sound preferences, and the relationships between certain characteristics of the acoustic environment and the perception of acoustic stimuli [11]. The concept of sound- scape introduces a different approach to the analysis of the acoustic environment compared to the concept of noise [12]. Therefore, strategies should not be limited to managing and controlling noise in urban space. Interest in soundscape quality should also increase due to its impact on health, both physical and mental [13–16]. Soundscape is also increasingly popular in the field of landscape architecture, landscape planning, and design [17–21]. Studies on landscape aesthetics usually involve the analysis of the visual appeal of land- scape, and ignore the impact of sounds and other stimuli. Nonetheless, sound increasingly frequently proves to contribute to a positive or negative judgment of “visible” landscapes, and cohesiveness between sound and image is considered to lead to a better assessment of landscapes [22–27]. Civilization changes have led to fast disappearance of tranquil areas and traditional soundscapes. The arrangement of communication, industrial, recreational, and service facilities, as well as transportation systems, directly affects the acoustic nature of space. It is not possible to completely eliminate sounds generated by transport, industry, services, etc., in urban areas. An attempt should be made, however, to protect places of high acoustic quality (including quiet areas). In accordance with the idea of sound ecology, the soundscape of cities should be optimized. The sound space should be friendly, aesthetically pleasing, orderly, and functional, and most importantly (if possible) without excessive noise [28]. According to Cerwén and Mossberg, safeguarding the quality of parks and other recreational spaces as quiet areas in the future is likely to emphasize the importance of balancing urban noise even more [29]. Research carried out by Brambilla et al. [30,31] in urban parks in Milan and Rome showed that sound pressure levels are often almost higher than the limits commonly used to define quiet areas. The quality of urban soundscapes is closely related to the overall urban environmental quality [11,32–34]. Noise pollution is a growing problem in the environment of cities, and the design of urban soundscapes as part of sustainable urban landscapes should be taken into account by architects, landscape architects, and urban planners [32,33,35]. Experiments with the soundscape concept in the architectural design process provide new opportunities for progressive design solutions [36], and enable planners, architects, or engineers to assess the likely impact of different design alternatives on a place’s soundscape [5,35,37,38]. Legal protection against noise in Poland is currently based on the Environmental Protection Law Act (2001) [39] and the applicable ordinances compliant with the provisions of the Environmental Noise Directive [40]. With a few exceptions (e.g., criteria for delimiting quiet areas), the aforementioned Act is coherent, and introduces acoustic standards as well as a system of penalties for non-compliance with the law. So far, however, these regulations have not led to any improvement of the acoustic climate in Poland [41]. The current law concerning the protection and shaping of landscape is equivocal and imprecise, and has a generally declarative character. Government administration authorities have no instruments to enforce the law. The analysis of the “Environmental protection programs against noise” projects for Polish agglomerations has shown that protection against noise is often limited to enclosing main transportation arteries with acoustic screens or replacing window frames [42]. The particularly significant issues of spatial planning, separation of quiet areas, or acoustic design of public spaces is neglected. An important role in the protection of the sonic qualities of a landscape should be played by local planning and architectural and landscape design [43]. The important function of urban green areas in reducing noise is recognized by the European Environment Agency. It is referred to in two reports, namely Quiet areas in Europe—the environment unaffected by noise pollution, 2016 [44], and Noise in Europe, 2014 [45]. The aim of the article is a multi-criteria analysis of soundscape based on the example of three parks in Olsztyn (Poland) as a part of the landscape planning process to determine the direction of re-design of places most exposed to noise. Such analyses are usually Land 2021, 10, 66 3 of 26

omitted or treated marginally in the design process, although they may affect the way parks are designed, potentially resulting in reduction of noise nuisance. Users’ opinions regarding aesthetics or function are often taken into account in the design process, while no assessment is undertaken concerning noise or sound preferences. The presented analyses contribute to expanding knowledge through the use of a simple, multi-criteria analysis process aimed at the identification and evaluation of the soundscape of parks in middle-sized Central and Eastern European cities as an element of design and planning. Importantly, while many studies on the topic of soundscape of parks are available globally, research from Central and Eastern Europe is still scarce, particularly that employing a multidimensional approach towards soundscape. The majority of studies focus only on noise measurements or on soundscape perception in transportation zones. Moreover, different geographic, spatial, and climate conditions of these regions should be emphasized to permit comparison with other regions around the globe in the future.

2. Literature Review 2.1. The Role of Green Infrastructure in Perception of Soundscape Urban parks and the sound properties of greenery are important in the context of the soundscape quality of an urban environment. Urban parks are considered public spaces important for sustainable urban environments. They provide urban dwellers with places to improve their physical and mental health [46–49]. They are regarded as tranquil spaces with restorative effects [16,50,51]. Nonetheless, the environmental functions of urban parks involving improvement of the soundscape of the urban environment by reducing noise can be constrained by their size and location [52]. The spatial forms of greenery shaping positive features of the city’s local environment are important in the context of climate change [53,54] as well as noise reduction [55,56]. Urban soil and vegetation can attenuate noise pollution [57,58]. The same concerns green roofs [59] and vegetated surfaces of vertical greening systems [60,61]. Considering the role of greenery in improving the environment, the issue of reducing noise by introducing vegetation is naturally becoming a subject of discussion [62,63]. In this case, the role of greenery is determined by physiographic conditions, terrain, habitat, and climatic conditions, as well as the structure, form, and morphology of individual species. Single and low plantings provide small effects, while greater value is offered by group and compact plantings. Moreover, some researchers draw attention to the possibility of using a variety of combined techniques, e.g., barriers constituting walls constructed in various technologies in combination with vegetation [60,61]. Such technical and engineering solutions provide better results, particularly in the spaces of cities affected by transport noise pollution [63]. While such solutions seem to be expedient in industrial or transportation spaces, aesthetic and environmental issues make them less suited to the park space, although from the point of view of noise reduction they are obviously a basic necessity. With regard to the type of vegetation and its role in noise suppression, various authors have conducted laboratory and “in situ” studies [63,64]. Leaves have the ability to attenuate acoustic waves. The higher the density of greenery, the total surface of the leaves and area of the complex, the greater the damping value [65]. According to Zimny [66], a lawn is the type of vegetation characterized by the lowest acous- tic wave absorption capacity due to the low height and low density of the vegetation [66]. According to Czerwieniec and Lewi´nska[67], hedges consisting of trees or shrubs are often planted in order to suppress noise. This type of acoustic barrier can suppress sounds depending on the density, height, width, and species used [67]. Results of research by Samara and Tsitsoni [64] showed higher noise reductions through a belt of trees than over grass-covered ground. To improve the contribution of vegetation to noise reduction, it should be sufficiently dense to prevent the observer from seeing the road through the vegetation. The level of ground vegetation should also be as high as possible. This is achieved through combining trees and shrubs [51,64,68–72]. According to research by Van Land 2021, 10, 66 4 of 26

Renterghem, the reduction of the level of noise nuisance by vegetation can reach 10 dB Lden [62].

2.2. Research Methods on Soundscapes Several methods of quantitative and qualitative measurement and assessment of urban soundscapes have been developed [73–80]. This reflects the fact that the assessment of a sound environment cannot be determined by a simple measurement. ISO/TS 12913-3:2019 provides requirements and supportive information on analysis of data collected in situ through methods specified in ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 [81,82]. The human perception of noise is not absolute, and primarily relies on the meaning of sounds in relation to the sources emitting noise and the people exposed to it [32]. Therefore, the methods of measurement and assessment need to account for the subjective impact of noise in correlation with acoustic parameters, for both the negative and positive effects of noise in defining the acoustic quality of an urban environment [32]. As indicated by Kang et al. [10] referring to Fastl and Zwiker [83], psychoacoustics deals with the quantitative link between physical stimuli and the hearing sensations caused by them. Psychoacoustic parameters such as loudness, roughness, sharpness, or fluctuation strength permit the description of the character of an acoustic environment in detail and allow the relation of the physical phenomenon (acoustic environment) to the perceptual construct of the acoustic environment (soundscape). A hearing-related parameter [10] that has proved significant in several surveys [84] is the relative approach parameter, related to perceivable patterns in acoustic signals. On the other hand, researchers of soundscape focus on individual data regarding responses to the acoustic environment [10]. Four primary methods of soundscape research can be designated from the review by Aletta et al. [85]: soundwalks, laboratory experiments, narrative interviews, and behavioral observations. These four methods are predominantly associated with five data collection tools: questionnaires, semantic scales, interview protocols, physiological measurements, and observation protocols [85]. Along with the development of information technologies, mapping soundscapes has been enjoying growing interest in recent years. The numerous works addressing the issue [86–89] employ, among others, the ecological, humanistic, and acoustic ap- proaches [43][86–89]. Soundwalk, defined in ISO12913-2:2018 as “the method that implies a walk in an area with a focus on listening to the acoustic environment” [82], and described by Butler [90] as practice in cultural geography, is also used as a method of studying soundscapes (e.g., [78,91,92]).

3. Materials and Methods The primary assumptions of the research were based on the following premises: • emphasis on the purposefulness of introducing soundscape analyses when designing green areas, including city parks • analysis of the degree and direction of noise in the park’s surroundings • analysis of the functional and spatial connections in relation to noise level based on the analysis of the acoustic map and own measurements • inclusion of noise and SPL measurements in leafy and leafless periods • involving park users in research as direct recipients of these spaces • indication of design guidelines and proposals for parks, based on the results of soundscape analyses in the park and generally accepted principles of designing green areas Additional assumptions regarding the selection of the study area and parks were as follows: • The research was carried out in Olsztyn, the largest city of the Warmia and Mazury region (with a population of 170,000). Olsztyn was deliberately chosen because of the specificity of its program strategies which prioritize environmental protection Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27

specificity of its program strategies which prioritize environmental protection and reduction of noise levels, thereby improving the safety and health conditions of resi- dents • The choice of research units, i.e., parks, was also determined by the fact that, in the development documents, the city of Olsztyn is declared to be a “Garden City”, envi- ronmentally friendly and quiet • As mentioned previously, studies in Olsztyn and throughout Poland regarding noise measurements and types of sounds, as well as analyses of sound perception were not taken into account when designing green areas, including parks. The study results may be helpful in the planning and design process, not only in the case of Olsztyn, but also in other cities of a similar structure. Land 2021, 10, 66 5 of 26 3.1. The Study Area The study was based on a preliminary analysis of the six largest parks in Olsztyn, Poland (Annex 1).and The reduction detailed ofanalyses noise levels, (discu therebyssed in this improving article) covered the safety three and selected health conditions parks. The choiceof of residents three parks was dictated by their location and function, and predom- inantly by the• absenceThe choice of disturbing of research elements, units, e.g., i.e., road parks, or construction was also determined works, during by the the fact that, in measurements (suchthe development disruptions occurred documents, in the the other city ofthree). Olsztyn is declared to be a “Garden City”, The study areaenvironmentally covers three friendlycity parks and in quietdifferent parts of the city of Olsztyn in the • Warmian-MasurianAs mentioned Voivodeship previously, (Figure 1, studies Table 1). in Olsztyn and throughout Poland regarding noise measurements and types of sounds, as well as analyses of sound perception were not The selection of parks for analysis was based on the following: taken into account when designing green areas, including parks. The study results • size of parks—theymay be helpfulare the largest in the planning parks in the and city design in terms process, of surface not only area in (from the case 8.6 of Olsztyn, ha to 17.4 ha),but (see also Table in other 1). The cities urban of a similar forest complex structure. located in the northern part of the city, as well as smaller parks and squares, were excluded from the analysis due to their3.1. different The Study nature Area and use. • location—allThe parks study are waslocated based in the on city a preliminary center or just analysis outside of the the city six center, largest within parks in Olsztyn, a radiusPoland of 4 km (Annex from the 1). Thegeometric detailed center. analyses (discussed in this article) covered three selected • accessibility—allparks. The parks choice are of threeopen parksto the waspublic dictated and frequently by their location visited andby inhabitants. function, and predomi- • source nantlyof noise—the by the absence parks were of disturbing selected for elements, analysis e.g., based road on or the construction assumption works, that during the the mainmeasurements source of noise (such is generated disruptions by occurred transport, in particularly the other three). at park boundaries. • functional program—theThe study area parks covers were three selected city parks for inanalysis different due parts to the of thediverse city offunc- Olsztyn in the tional programWarmian-Masurian offered by each Voivodeship of them. (Figure 1, Table1).

Figure 1. Location of Poland, region of Warmia and Mazury, city of Olsztyn, and the selected parks. Figure 1. Location of Poland, region of Warmia and Mazury, city of Olsztyn, and the selected parks. Table 1. Basic characteristics of the examined parks.

All theLocation analyzed in parksTotal have diversified functions, dominated by walking, followed No Park Forms of Greenery Type Park’s Equipment by active sportthe City and recreation,Area (ha) and finally a historical and aesthetic function. The parks are used by the residents daily throughoutIncluding the a part year, of Cityand are publicly available.Archeological In all of sites, Northern part Forest, old trees, Recreation and bicycle paths, hiking 1 Jakubowo 9.3 of the center greenery of 2 sports area trails, rope park, tennis nature reserves court, forest stadium Abundance of high vegetation and lawn Recreation and Fountain, two ponds, 2 Kusoci´nskiego Central East 17.4 surface, shrubs, leisure function skate park addition of perennials Old trees, aquatic Recreation and vegetation on the Numerous sculptures, historic function banks of water fountains, waterfall, 3 Podzamcze Historic center 8.6 near Lyna River, reservoirs, river, plant bust of Nicolaus known as compositions in Copernicus (from 1916) castle park representative places Land 2021, 10, 66 6 of 26

The selection of parks for analysis was based on the following: • size of parks—they are the largest parks in the city in terms of surface area (from 8.6 ha to 17.4 ha), (see Table1). The urban forest complex located in the northern part of the city, as well as smaller parks and squares, were excluded from the analysis due to their different nature and use. • location—all parks are located in the city center or just outside the city center, within a radius of 4 km from the geometric center. • accessibility—all parks are open to the public and frequently visited by inhabitants. • source of noise—the parks were selected for analysis based on the assumption that the main source of noise is generated by transport, particularly at park boundaries. • functional program—the parks were selected for analysis due to the diverse functional program offered by each of them. All the analyzed parks have diversified functions, dominated by walking, followed by active sport and recreation, and finally a historical and aesthetic function. The parks are used by the residents daily throughout the year, and are publicly available. In all of the parks, vegetation structure is based on compact plantings of trees and shrubs, and large fragments of lawns, along with low vegetation. The basic characteristics of the analyzed parks are presented in Table1.

3.2. Methodological Stages of Research The research consisted of an analysis of noise level by reference to the acoustic map, followed by SPL measurements in the leafless and leafy periods. These measurements were indicative, complementing the analysis of the acoustic map. The qualitative research consisted of the analysis of characteristic sounds at selected points in two periods (leafless and leafy). The research was supplemented with interviews with park users. The aforementioned analyses were preceded by a simplified functional and spatial analysis of the park surroundings. Based on the results, the aim was to formulate guidelines and recommendations for landscape design and management targeted at the reduction of perceived noise, as well as improvement of soundscapes and therefore users’ comfort in parks. The preliminary recognition of the study areas, photo inventory, and description of the elements that may affect the soundscape (vegetation, topography, usable zones, street furniture, etc.), as well as the analysis of functions in the areas located close to parks, were conducted in October 2017. This included a study of the acoustic map (noise map) created by BMT AGROSS, elaborated for the environmental noise protection program for the city of Olsztyn [93]. Analyses of SPL measurements and analyses of characteristic sounds were carried out in April 2018 (leafless period) and May 2018 (leafy period). The analysis of characteristic sounds employed a method of assessing the structure of the soundscape, modified for our research after Bernat [43]. This analysis was carried out at selected points during a walk by listening to and recording characteristic sounds. In terms of climate and vegetation, the region of Warmia and Mazury is characterized by variable and transient climate. Weather conditions are largely variable both at a daily and an annual scale. Vegetation rapidly develops and becomes leafy after winter and early spring, sometimes lasting until mid-April (cooler period). In connection with this period of analysis, in mid-April the trees were in a leafless state, while at the end of May they were already in a leafy state, as illustrated by photographs taken in particular periods in all parks (due to the imposed limit, this article presents only one example, Figure2). Analyses of the soundscape of the parks were first carried out in a leafless state, and then in a leafy state. The examinations were performed in the afternoon (2 p.m.–4 p.m.) on working days (9–12 April 2018 and 22–24 May 2018), in moderate wind and sunny weather. No mass or other events that could interfere with the perception of the soundscape took place in the analyzed areas during the research. Land 2021, 10, 66 7 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 27

FigureFigure 2.2. Vegetation in the Jakubowo park in in two two peri periods.ods. Leafless Leafless (April (April 2018) 2018) and and leafy leafy period period (May(May 2018).2018).

TheAnalyses inclusion of the of soundscape analyses in bothof the the parks leafy were and first leafless carried state out during in a leafless the research state, was and intentional.then in a leafy Vegetation state. The is assumed examinations (based were on the performed available in research the afternoon results of(2 otherpm–4 authors) pm) on toworking be a moderate days (9–12 or neutral April sound 2018 barrierand 22–24 in comparison May 2018), to otherin moderate technical wind and engineeringand sunny solutions.weather. No While mass the or other use of events noise that barriers could along interfere highways with the is perfectlyperception justified, of the sound- noise suppressionscape took place in the in citythe analyzed center and areas nearby during buildings the research. by means of screens is difficult due to otherThe functions inclusion ofof theseanalyses spaces, in both high the number leafy and of theirleafless users, state spatial during and the conservation research was issues,intentional. or aesthetic Vegetation reasons. is assumed It is therefore (based difficulton the available to find an research optimal results solution of forother green au- areasthors) bordering, to be a moderate e.g., car or traffic. neutral Therefore, sound barr the studyier in referscomparison to the needto other to propose technical solutions and en- ingineering the form solutions. of plant forms, While consideredthe use of noise not only barriers from along the point highways of view is ofperfectly noise reduction justified, (evennoise ifsuppression the assumed in the effect city is center smaller), and when nearby compared buildings to by the means commonly of screens used is acoustic difficult roaddue to barriers. other functions The use of of plant these forms, spaces, particularly high number in parks, of thei isr anusers, obvious spatial solution, and conserva- but it is importanttion issues, to or introduce aesthetic the reasons. function It of is a ther “green”efore acoustic difficult barrier. to find Such an optimal “green” solution barriers arefor alsogreen important areas bordering, from a psychological e.g., car traffic. point Therefore, of view the in the study context refers of to perceiving the need sounds.to propose solutions in the form of plant forms, considered not only from the point of view of noise 3.2.1.reduction Analysis (even of if the the Acoustic assumed Map effect is smaller), when compared to the commonly used acousticThe road study barriers. involved The an use analysis of plant of forms, the acoustic particularly map ofin theparks, city is of an Olsztyn obvious [ 93solution,]. The preparationbut it is important of the acoustic to introduce map andthe function disclosure of ofa “green” study results acoustic to residents barrier. Such is stipulated “green” bybarriers the provisions are also important of the Act from from a 27 psychological April 2001, Environmental point of view in Protection the context Law, of perceiving Journal of Lawssounds. of 2008, No. 25, item 150 [39]. Such an obligation results from the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC [40]. The main objective of the implementation of the acoustic map3.2.1. is Analysis to obtain of up-to-datethe Acoustic information Map on the acoustic state of the environment with consideration of demographic data on the method of land development and use, and The study involved an analysis of the acoustic map of the city of Olsztyn [93]. The therefore “to create the basis for the development of Community measures to reduce noise preparation of the acoustic map and disclosure of study results to residents is stipulated from major sources, in particular from road rolling stock [93]”. The indicators for the by the provisions of the Act from 27 April 2001, Environmental Protection Law, Journal implementation of the long-term anti-noise policy were introduced into Polish legislation of Laws of 2008, No. 25, item 150 [39]. Such an obligation results from the implementation by the ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of 14 June 2007 on permissible noise of Directive 2002/49/EC [40]. The main objective of the implementation of the acoustic map levels in the environment [94]. These are: is to obtain up-to-date information on the acoustic state of the environment with consid- • erationlong-term of demographic average A-sound data on levelthe method expressed of land in decibels development (dBA), and determined use, and during therefore all “to createdays ofthe the basis year, for with the consideration development ofof theCommunity time of day, measures time of evening,to reduce and noise time from of majornight, sources, designated in particular in the Actfrom as road LDEN roll, ing stock [93]”. The indicators for the imple- • long-term average A-weighted sound level expressed in decibels (dBA), determined mentation of the long-term anti-noise policy were introduced into Polish legislation by during all nights of the year, designated in the Environmental Protection Law as L . the ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of 14 June 2007 on permissible noiseN levelsThe in coefficientthe environment LDEN was[94]. adoptedThese are: for the tests according to the assumptions of the acoustic map of Olsztyn. It was calculated as follows: • long-term average A-sound level expressed in decibels (dBA), determined during all days of the year, with consideration of the time of day, time of evening, and time of 12 0.1L 4 0.1(L ) 8 0.1(L ) L = 10lg 10 D + 10 E+5 + 10 N+10 (1) night, designatedDEN in the Act24 as LDEN, 24 24 • long-term average A-weighted sound level expressed in decibels (dBA), determined where:during all nights of the year, designated in the Environmental Protection Law as LN.

The coefficient LDEN was adopted for the tests according to the assumptions of the acoustic map of Olsztyn. It was calculated as follows: Land 2021, 10, 66 8 of 26

LDEN—is the long-run A-weighted average sound level in decibels (dBA), determined during all days of the year, with consideration of the time of day (time period from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.), time of the evening (time period from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.), and time of night (time period from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.). LD—is the long-run A-weighted average sound level in decibels (dBA), determined during all times of the day in the year (time period from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.), LE—is the long-run average A-sound level in decibels (dBA), determined at all times of the evening in the year (time period from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.), LN—is the long-term average A-weighted sound level expressed in decibels (dBA), determined during all seasons of the year (understood as time period from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.). Indicator LDEN was calculated based on long-term measurements of average noise levels. The measurements were conducted 4 m above ground.

3.2.2. Test I. Evaluation of the Soundscape of Parks by the Authors in Selected Points in Terms of SPL (a) and Types of Characteristic Sounds (b) in Leafy and Leafless Period Test I/a. The analyses of SPL aimed at determining which places in the parks are most exposed to noise. The sound pressure levels (SPL) as A-weighted continuous equivalent sound level (LAeq) were measured in dBA values at nodal points of communication routes and in characteristic places. To achieve reliable results, three measurements were carried out at each place and then averaged. Measurements were taken 1.2 m above the ground (reflecting the fact that park users do not only walk but also sit in the park, and that many park users are children). The intervals between the three measurements lasted 60 s. A Beha Amprobe 93517D sound level meter was used for the measurement. The results are presented in the form of a chart and in tables (Annex 2). The obtained data revealed the quietest and loudest places, as well as the average SPL, for the entire park in leafy and leafless periods. The test procedure also aimed at determining which places in the park are most exposed to noise. Selected measurement points (Table2) were designated throughout the park in characteristic places, from the park’s borders to its interior, to analyze the entire park space, including the interiors used by residents for a longer period of the day. In this way, the study was not limited to lanes and access roads, particularly those bordering on transport areas, but also included places of where users stayed longer in public spaces.

Table 2. Numbers of characteristic points selected for Test I/a, and I/b.

No. of Points Selected for Test I/a Park Selected Points in Parks for Test I/b (No. of Points Selected for Test I/b) Jakubowo (JP) 58(4) 5, 19,23, 24 Kusoci´nskiego(KSP) 54(4) 8,13,15, 21 Podzamcze (PP) 38(5) 1, 8, 13, 14, 23

The analyses performed in two periods aimed at answering the question of whether and to what extent vegetation in a leafless and leafy state reduces noise in the park. The paired t-test was applied to estimate the occurrence of a statistically significant difference between average noise levels during leafless and leafy periods in selected parks (Annex 3). Test I/b. Analysis of selected characteristic points (e.g., bridges, park entrances/exits, fountains, playgrounds, etc.) in each park in terms of sound structure aimed at specify- ing characteristic sounds as well as background sounds in given points, and evaluating their quality. The results of Test I/a and Test I/b obtained in the selected points of a given park in a leafless and leafy state were collected in tables and presented in maps. In the maps, SPL is depicted by color, and the main characteristic sounds and background sounds are depicted in the form of pictograms. Land 2021, 10, 66 9 of 26

3.2.3. Test II. Interviews with Park Users. Mental Maps The concept of a mental map, i.e., a subjective image of geographical space in the human mind, unique for each observer, is based on individual experience and information level (mental landscape), and is well established in geography, behavioral sciences, and psychology. Many researchers emphasize that the spatial preferences of the population and related behaviors depend not so much on the objective characteristics of the environment as on their transformed subjective reflection in the mind of every human being (e.g., [95,96]). The mental map is unique for each person, because each person has an individual set of personal experiences and level of information. At the same time, however, certain similarities can be observed between the tastes of people in different groups. Because public participation is a key element of soundscape design, the subjective opinion of park users was taken into account during the research. The purpose of the survey was to complement Test I, and its aim was to indicate how park users perceive the space of parks depending on noise level. The study in the form of a walk and interview with respondents in the parks was conducted in the leafy period, on 22 May (Park Jakubowo), 23 May (Kusoci´nskiegoPark), and 24 May (Park Podzamcze) 2018. In each park, 20 participants joined the study. The participants were aged 18–75. All of them were living in Olsztyn during that period. The respondents were selected randomly from among people walking in the park, and before starting the interview they were asked about the frequency of staying in the park. People participating in activities in the park at least once a week were selected for the interview. This criterion allowed for the assumption that they know the structure of the park. The study consisted of mapping areas which, according to the participants, are characterized by positive sounds, and places where unwanted sounds occur (noise). Each participant had the task of indicating these areas on the map. The route ran through the points previously marked for Test I. The obtained data were digitized and then presented in the graphical form of a mental map.

3.2.4. Guidelines and Recommendations for the Landscape Design and Management of the Analyzed Parks Based on the information obtained during the research, a set of guidelines and recom- mendations was developed aimed at the improvement of the quality of the sound environ- ment of parks, including guidelines for plantings, spatial planning, and management.

4. Results 4.1. Structural and Spatial Analysis of the Park Surroundings in Relation to Noise Sources The analyzed parks are located in the city center (Figure3) and are therefore adjacent to transport zones (main city roads, railways, trams), service and residential buildings, public utility buildings, and urban infrastructure. Due to such locations, users of the parks (residents) can experience noise of varying intensity, particularly near the zones bordering roads. The analysis of the acoustic map (parts for selected areas) with consideration of function showed the highest noise intensity caused by main roads right next to the park boundaries. In the case of the Jabubowo Park (No. 1), this is Wojska Polskiego Street (eastern border of the park). In the case of the Podzamcze park (No. 2), this is Mochnackiego Street and Grunwaldzka Street (southern border of the park), Nowowiejskiego Street/Maria Konopnickiej Street (northern border of the park), and Pieni˛eznego˙ street (eastern border of the park). In the case of the Kusoci´nskiegoPark (No. 3), this is Dworcowa Street (cuts the park in half), Piłsudskiego Street (southern border of the park), and Leonharda Street (eastern border of the park) (Figure3). The residential function has a slightly smaller impact as a source of noise than trans- port. In the Jakubowo Park, sounds generated by a housing estate are primarily associated with the south-eastern zone, and in the Podzamcze Park is are partially associated with Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27 the park in half), Piłsudskiego Street (southern border of the park), and Leonharda Street the(eastern park borderin half), of Pi thełsudskiego park) (Figure Street 3). (southern border of the park), and Leonharda Street (easternThe border residential of the function park) (Figure has a 3). slightly smaller impact as a source of noise than Land 2021, 10, 66 transport.The residential In the Jakubowo function Pa rk,has sounds a slightly generated smaller by impact a housing as aestate source are of primarily noise 10than as- of 26 transport.sociated with In the the Jakubowo south-eastern Park, zone, sounds and generated in the Podzamcze by a housing Park estate is are are partially primarily associ- as- sociatedated with with two the places, south-eastern to the south zone, and and north-east, in the Podzamcze as in the KusociPark isń areskiego partially Park. associ-As for atednaturaltwo with places, forms two to ofplaces, the greenery, south to andthe only south north-east, the andJakubowo north-east, as in the Park Kusoci´nskiegoPark. asincludes in the Kusocia fragmentedńskiego As for border Park. natural Aswith forms for a naturaldenseof greenery, urban forms forest onlyof greenery, thecomplex Jakubowo only (north-western the Park Jakubowo includes part Park a). fragmentedBoth includes the forest a borderfragmented wall with (next border a to dense the with Jaku- urban a densebowoforest Park)urban complex and forest (north-westernwater complex reservoirs (north-western part). in all Both three the partparks forest). Bothgenerate wall the (next forestpositive to thewall sounds Jakubowo (next (Figure to the Park) Jaku-3). and bowowater Park) reservoirs and water in all reservoirs three parks in generateall three positiveparks generate sounds positive (Figure3 sounds). (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Location of the analyzed parks in the city center, and spatial analysis of the park surround- Figure 3. Location of the analyzed parks in the city center, and spatial analysis of the park surround- Figureings in 3.relation Location to noiseof the sources.analyzed parks in the city center, and spatial analysis of the park surround- ingsings in in relation relation to to noise noise sources. sources. 4.2.4.2. Analysis Analysis in in the the Jakubowo Jakubowo Park Park 4.2. Analysis in the Jakubowo Park 4.2.1.4.2.1. Analysis Analysis of of the the Acoustic Acoustic Map Map with withinin the the Boundaries Boundaries of of the the Jakubowo Jakubowo Park Park 4.2.1. Analysis of the Acoustic Map within the Boundaries of the Jakubowo Park TheThe analysis analysis of of the the acoustic acoustic map map [93] [93 ]with withinin the the boundaries boundaries of of the the Jakubowo Jakubowo Park Park (Figure(FigureThe 4)4 analysis) shows thetheof highestthehighest acoustic noise noise map level level [93] occurring occurring within in the ain linear aboundaries linear pattern pattern alongof the along WojskaJakubowo Wojska Polskiego Park Pol- (FigureskiegoStreet. Street. 4) The shows noise The the levelnoise highest there level oscillates noisethere leveloscillates between occurring between 66 dBA in a66 andlinear dBA 75 dBApatternand at75 the dBAalong eastern at Wojska theborder eastern Pol- of skiegoborderthe park, Street.of the and park,The decreases noise and decreaseslevel towards there thetowards oscillates central the part between central of the part66 park dBA of to the 56and park dBA-60 75 dBAto 56 dBA, atdBA-60 the and eastern furtherdBA, borderandtowards further of the the towards park, west. and Atthe thedecreases west. border At towardsthe with border Radiowa the with central Street,Radiowa part it of reaches Street, the park it 51–55 reaches to 56 dBA, dBA-60 51–55 and dBA, in the andwestern infurther the part western towards of the part parkthe of west. andthe atpark At the the and border border at th withe withborder Parkowa Radiowa with Street,Parkowa Street, the Street,it value reaches isthe the 51–55value lowest, isdBA, the i.e., andlowest,46 dBA-50in the i.e., western 46 dBA dBA-50 (Figure part dBA of4 ).the (Figure park and 4). at the border with Parkowa Street, the value is the lowest, i.e., 46 dBA-50 dBA (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Acoustic map within boundaries of the Jakubowo park. Source: Own elaboration based on Acoustic Map of Olsztyn [93]. Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 27

Figure 4. Acoustic map within boundaries of the Jakubowo park. Source: Own elaboration based Land 2021, 10, 66 on Acoustic Map of Olsztyn [93]. 11 of 26

4.2.2. Test I. Results of Evaluation of SPL Measurements and Characteristic Sounds in 4.2.2.the Jakubowo Test I. Results Park of Evaluation of SPL Measurements and Characteristic Sounds in the Jakubowo Park For Test I/a, 58 points were selected for evaluation. Point 32 is perceived as the qui- For Test I/a, 58 points were selected for evaluation. Point 32 is perceived as the etest in the leafless period, and point 52 as the loudest. In the leafy period, point 23 is the quietest in the leafless period, and point 52 as the loudest. In the leafy period, point 23 is quietest, and point 52 is the loudest. Noise generated by car traffic in the leafless period is the quietest, and point 52 is the loudest. Noise generated by car traffic in the leafless period noticeable along the line from south to north (on the border with Wojska Polskiego St.) in is noticeable along the line from south to north (on the border with Wojska Polskiego St.) points 14–17, 1, 19, 52, and 43–45, and in the leafy period in points 14–18, 52, 44, and 45. in points 14–17, 1, 19, 52, and 43–45, and in the leafy period in points 14–18, 52, 44, and In the leafy period, a reduction in the noise level in points 23–37 is also observed, account- 45. In the leafy period, a reduction in the noise level in points 23–37 is also observed, accountinging for the forlargest the largestdifference difference between between the leafless the leafless and leafy and period leafy period (Figure (Figure 5). SPL5). meas- SPL measurementsurements are provided are provided in Figure in Figure 6. 6.

FigureFigure 5.5. ResultsResults ofof evaluationevaluation ofof thethe soundscapesoundscape (SPL(SPL measurementsmeasurements andand characteristiccharacteristic sounds)sounds) presentedpresented in in a a map map of of the the Jakubowo Jakubowo Park Park in in the the leafless leafless and and leafy leafy period. period. Traffic Traffic is the is the main main source source of noise.of noise. In theIn the leafless leafless period, period, point point 32 32 is theis the quietest, quietest, and and point point 52 52 is is the the loudest. loudest. In In the the leafy leafyperiod, period, pointpoint 2323 isis the the quietest, quietest, and and point point 52 52 is is the the loudest. loudest. Characteristic Characteristicsounds soundsin inthe theleafless leafless and and leafy leafy periodperiod are are described described as as pictograms pictograms for for points points 5, 5, 19, 19, 23, 23, and and 24. 24. Land 2021, 10, 66 12 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27

Figure 6. SPL measurements in dBA—Jakubowo Park. Figure 6. SPL measurements in dBA—Jakubowo Park. For Test I/b, 4 points (5, 19, 23, and 24) were selected for the analysis in terms of For Test I/b, 4 points (5, 19, 23, and 24) were selected for the analysis in terms of sound sound structure (Figure5). The comparison of the leafy and leafless periods shows that structure (Figure 5). The comparison of the leafy and leafless periods shows that transpor- transportation is the dominant source of noise. Leafy period analyses indicate that noise tation is the dominant source of noise. Leafy period analyses indicate that noise levels levels have decreased along the western border of the study area. In both cases, the western parthave behind decreased the slopealong isthe the western quietest border area in of the the park. study The area. main In sourceboth cases, of noise the western is traffic part that surroundsbehind the theslope park is the mostly quietest from area the east,in the near park. Wojska The main Polskiego source Street. of noise In Testis traffic I/b, thisthat typesurrounds of sound the affectedpark mostly point from No. 19the in east, the leaflessnear Wojska period. Polskiego The example Street. of In point Test 23 I/b, shows this atype significant of sound difference affected point in the No. change 19 in ofthe perception leafless period. of sounds The example in the leafless of point state 23 dueshows to grounda significant works difference carried out in inthe this change part ofof theperc parkeption and of the sounds resulting in the occurrence leafless state of this due type to ofground sound. works Positive carried sounds out in are this generated part of the by park trees and (leaves, the resulting birdsongs; occurrence points 9, of 23, this 24) type and waterof sound. (point Positive 5), particularly sounds are in generated the leafy period. by trees The (leaves, park isbirdsongs; often visited points by residents,9, 23, 24) and but alsowater by (point patients 5), particularly from a nearby in the hospital, leafy period who walk. The inpark the is park often along visited the by paths residents, from thebut east,also by resulting patients in from reporting a nearby anthropological hospital, who sounds walk in (pedestrians, the park along point the 19, paths mostly from in thethe leafyeast, resulting period). in reporting anthropological sounds (pedestrians, point 19, mostly in the leafy period). Result of the Paired Samples t-test in the Jakubowo Park ResultWith of the the Paired assumed Samples significance t-Test levelin the (α Jakubowo= 0.05), the Park value p < 0.00001 was obtained as a resultWith of the the performed assumed significance paired-samples level t-test. (α = 0.05), A significant the value increase p < 0.00001 in the was noise obtained level inas thea result leafless of the period performed was observed paired-samples (M = 63.67 t-test., SD A = significant 5.44) in comparison increase in to the the noise leafy level period in (theM =leafless 51.65, period SD = 12.81), was observed t(57) = − (M9.54, = 63.67,p < 0.00001. SD = 5.44) The in resultcomparison is significant to the leafy at p period< 0.05. (Annex(M = 51.65, 3). SD = 12.81), t(57) = −9.54, p < 0.00001. The result is significant at p < 0.05. (Annex 3). Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27

Land 2021, 10, 66 4.2.3. Test II. Interview with Park Users in the Jakubowo Park 13 of 26 The results of the interview with park users are depicted in a mental map (Figure 7). Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27 The study proves that people spending time in the Jakubowo Park recognize the area of 4.2.3. Test II. Interview with Park Users in the Jakubowo Park 4.2.3.the eastern Test II. Interviewpart of the with park Park bordering Users in the on Jakubowo Wojska PolskiegoPark St. as the noisiest and most The results of the interview with park users are depicted in a mental map (Figure7). unpleasant.The results The of westernthe interview and withcentral park parts user sof are th depictede park proved in a mental to be map the (Figure highest 7). rated area TheinThe terms study study ofproves proves sound that thatquality people people spending(points spending 23, time 33, timein 34,the in38,Jakubowo the 40). Jakubowo Positive Park recognize Parkrating recognize wasthe area given of the to area areas of thearoundthe eastern eastern water part part reservoirsof ofthe the park park (pointsbordering bordering 40–42). on Wo on Injska Wojskathe Polskiego case Polskiego of aSt. positive as the St. noisiest asassessment, the noisiestand most participants and most unpleasant.referredunpleasant. to The two The western aspects, western and namely and central central theparts partspositive of th ofe park the perception parkproved proved to of be water the to be highest thesounds highest rated and area rated rustling area of in inleavesterms terms of(in of sound treesound stands, quality quality especially (points (points 23,23, those 33,33, 34,34, near 38,38, the 40).40). water Positive reservoir). rating rating was was given given to to areas areas around aroundwater reservoirswater reservoirs (points (points 40–42). 40–42). In the In the case case of aof positive a positive assessment, assessment, participantsparticipants referred referredto two aspects,to two aspects, namely namely the positive the positive perception perception of waterof water sounds sounds and and rustling rustling of of leaves (in leavestree stands, (in tree especiallystands, especially those nearthose the near water the water reservoir). reservoir).

Figure 7. Mental map of the Jakubowo Park. Respondents identified noisy spaces (red) and noise- FigureFigure 7. 7. MentalMental map map of ofthe the Jakubowo Jakubowo Park. Park. Respondent Respondentss identified identified noisy noisyspaces spaces (red) and (red) noise- and noise-free free and positive-sounding spaces (green). freeand and positive-sounding positive-sounding spaces spaces (green).(green).

4.3.4.3. Analysis Analysis Analysis in in inthe the the Kusoci Kusoci Kusoci´nskiegoParkńskiegońskiego Park Park 4.3.1.4.3.1. Analysis Analysis Analysis of of ofthe the the Acoustic Acoustic Map Map within within the Boundaries the Boundaries of the Kusoci of the ń Kusoci Kusoci´nskiegoParkskiego Parkńskiego Park TheThe analysis analysis of of the the acoustic acoustic map map [93] (Figure[93] [93] (Figure 8) shows 88)) shows showsthe highest thethe highest highestnoise level noisenoise at levellevel atat DworcowaDworcowa Street Street (71 (71 dBA–75 dBA–75 dBA). dBA). On both On both sides si sidesofdes the of border the borderwith the with street, the the street, noise the noise decreasesdecreases (66 (66 dBA–70 dBA–70 dBA), dBA), declining declining further further to the to east the and east west and (61 west dBA–65 (61 dBA–65 dBA). From dBA). From approximatelyapproximately the the the middle middle middle of bothof of both parts parts of the of park the topark the to west the and west east, and the east,values the are values are betweenbetween 51 51 dBA–55 dBA–55 dBA. dBA. At theAt theeastern eastern border border of the ofpark, the the park, values the dropvalues to 46drop dBA–50 to 46 dBA–50 dBA, while the quietest area is located right at the western border of the park, with a noise dBA, while the quietest area is located right at the western border of the park, with a noise level of 20 dBA–45 dBA (Figure 8). levellevel of of 20 20 dBA–45 dBA (Figure 88).).

Figure 8. Acoustic map within the boundaries of the Kusocińskiego Park. Source: Own elaboration based on Acoustic Map of Olsztyn [93]. Figure 8. Acoustic map within the boundaries of the Kusoci´nskiegoKusocińskiego Park. Source: Own elaboration based on Acoustic Map of Olsztyn [93]. [93]. Land 2021, 10, 66 14 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27

4.3.2.4.3.2. Test Test I. I. Results Results of of Evaluation Evaluation of of SPL SPL Measurements Measurements and and Characteristic Characteristic Sounds Sounds in in the theKusoci´nskiegoPark Kusocińskiego Park InIn the the Kusoci Kusoci´nskiegoPark,ńskiego Park, 54 54 points points were were selected selected fo forr Test Test I/a. I/a. The The test test shows shows that that in thein theleafless leafless period, period, point point No. No.13 is 13the is quietest the quietest,, and point and point No. 29 No. is the 29 isloudest. the loudest. In the Inleafy the period,leafy period, point 2 point is the 2 quietest, is the quietest, and point and 29 point is th 29e loudest. is the loudest. In addition In addition to the points to the pointslisted above,listed above,in the leafless in the leaflessperiod periodthe loudest the loudestarea was area located was locatedin the center, in the at center, the place at the where place Dworcowawhere Dworcowa Street divides Street divides the park the into park two into parts two (points parts (points 21, 22, 21, 38, 22, 39), 38, and 39), across and across the streetthe street at points at points 24, 35–37. 24, 35–37. In these In these places places (except (except point point 21), a 21), reduction a reduction of noise of noise level level in the in leafythe leafy period period is perceived. is perceived. Moreover, Moreover, larger larger differences differences between between noise noise levels levels perceived perceived in thein theleafless leafless and and leafy leafy period period are are observed observed in inpoints points 7, 7,50, 50, 51, 51, 45, 45, 7, 7, and and 11 11 (Figure (Figure 9).9). SPL SPL measurementsmeasurements are are provided provided in in Figure Figure 10. 10.

Figure 9. Results of evaluation of the soundscape (SPL measurements and characteristic sounds) Figurepresented 9. Results in the of map evaluation of theKusoci´nskiegoPark of the soundscape (SPL in the measurements leafless and and leafy characteristic period. The sounds) loudest presentedarea is located in the nearmap Dworcowaof the Kusoci Streetńskiego and Park the Aquasfera in the leafless Water and Recreation leafy period. and The Sports loudest Center. area The is locatedcharacteristic near Dworcowa sounds are Street described and the by Aquasfera pictograms Water in points Recreation 8, 13, 15, and and Sports 21. Center. The charac- teristic sounds are described by pictograms in points 8, 13, 15, and 21. For Test I/b, 4 points were selected for the analysis in terms of sound structure (FigureFor9 Test). The I/b, characteristic 4 points were sounds selected in for both the periods analysis are in soundsterms of of sound pedestrians, structure cars, (Figure and 9).birdsongs. The characteristic Traffic is sounds the main in sourceboth period of unpleasants are sounds sounds of pedestrians, in both periods cars, (negatively and bird- songs.perceived Traffic sounds is the are main car noisesource and of trafficunpleasant signals). sounds Test I/bin both reveals periods that noise(negatively is primarily per- ceivednoticeable sounds in pointare car 27 noise in the and center traffic of thesignals). park. Test Positive I/b reveals sounds that are generatednoise is primarily by trees noticeable(leaves, birdsongs; in point point27 in 15)the and center wind of (pointthe park. 8, 13, Positive 15) in the sounds leafy period, are generated less in the by leafless trees (leaves,period. birdsongs; In the leafy point period, 15) and a positive wind (point sound 8, 13, of water15) in isthe generated leafy period, by theless fountainin the leaf- on lessthe period. water reservoir In the leafy (point period 15)., a The positive park issound often of visited water inis thegenerated summer by season the fountain due to on its thecentral water location reservoir (educational, (point 15). service, The park sports, is often and visited large residential in the summer housing season estates due nearby). to its central location (educational, service, sports, and large residential housing estates nearby). Land 2021, 10, 66 15 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27

Therefore,Therefore, anthropological anthropological sounds sounds were were reported reported in in the the leafy leafy period period in in points points 13, 13, 15, 15, 21 21 (pedestrians(pedestrians and and skaters). skaters).

FigureFigure 10. 10. SPLSPL measurements measurements dBA—Kusoci dBA—Kusoci´nskiegoPark.ńskiego Park. Result of the Paired Samples t-test in the Kusoci´nskiegoPark Result of the Paired Samples t-test in the Kusocińskiego Park Assuming the significance level (α = 0.05), the value of p < 0.00001 was obtained as a resultAssuming of the dependent the significance sample level t-test. (α = 0.05), the value of p < 0.00001 was obtained as a resultThe of the noise dependent level significantly sample t-test. increased in the leafless period (M = 47.27, SD =6.29) comparedThe noise to the level leafy significantly period (M = increased 42.00, SD =in 7.27), the leafless t(53) = − period6.24, p <(M 0.00001. = 47.27, The SD result =6.29) is comparedsignificant to at thep < leafy 0.05 (Annexperiod (M 3). = 42.00, SD = 7.27), t(53) = −6.24, p < 0.00001. The result is significant at p < 0.05 (Annex 3). 4.3.3. Test II. Interview with Park Users in the Kusoci´nskiegoPark 4.3.3. ResultsTest II. Interview of the interview with Park with Users park in users the Kusoci are depictedńskiego in Park a mental map (Figure 11). AccordingResults to of park the interview users who with participated park users in theare study,depicted the in noisiest a mental and map most (Figure unpleasant 11). Accordingplace in the to parkpark isusers the who area borderingparticipated on in Dworcowa the study, the street noisiest (points and 18–25, most 37–39).unpleasant The placeentrance in the from park the is side the ofarea sports bordering center on Aquasfera Dworcowa (points street 29–30), (points as well18–25, as 37–39). places ofThe sports en- tranceactivities from (sports the side field of andsports skate center park Aquasfer “Kusocin”)a (points and playgrounds, 29–30), as well were as places also negatively of sports activitiesassessed (sports (point 14). field and skate park “Kusocin”) and playgrounds, were also negatively assessed (point 14). The area near the water reservoir (point 15), and the place with a large area covered with high vegetation in the western part of the park (11, 12, 47, 52) were quiet places, free of noise, or characterized by positive sounds. Land 2021, 10, 66 16 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 27

Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 27

Figure 11. Mental map of the Kusoci´nskiegoPark. Respondents identified noisy spaces (red) and Figure 11. Mental map of the Kusocińskiego Park. Respondents identified noisy spaces (red) and noise-free and positive-sounding spaces (green). noise-free and positive-sounding spaces (green). The area near the water reservoir (point 15), and the place with a large area covered 4.4.Figurewith Analysis high 11. Mental vegetationin the mapPodzamcze of in the the KusociPark western ńskiego part ofPark. the Respondents park (11, 12, identified 47, 52) were noisy quiet spaces places, (red) and free 4.4.1.noise-freeof noise, Analysis and or characterized positive-sou of the Acousticnding by positiveMap spaces wi (green).thin sounds. the Borders of the Podzamcze Park The analysis of the acoustic map (Figure 12) shows the highest noise level in small 4.4.4.4. Analysis Analysis in in the the Podzamcze Podzamcze Park Park parts of the park in the south-west at Pieniezny Street, and in the south at Grunwaldzka 4.4.1. Analysis of the Acoustic Map within the Borders of the Podzamcze Park Street4.4.1. (66Analysis dBA–70 of dBA).the Acoustic In the middle Map wi ofthin the the park, Borders especially of the along Podzamcze the Łyna Park River, where the vegetationTheThe analysis analysis is dense, of of the the the acoustic acoustic noise level map map is (Figure (Figure the lowest 12)12) shows shows(in a range the the highest highestof 46 dBA–50 noise noise level leveldBA inand in small small 30 dBA–45partsparts of of dBA). the the park park in in the the south-west south-west at at Pieniezny Pieniezny Street, Street, and and in in the the south south at at Grunwaldzka Grunwaldzka StreetStreet (66 (66 dBA–70 dBA–70 dBA). dBA). In In the the middle middle of of the the park, park, especially especially along along the the Ł Łynayna River, River, where where thethe vegetation vegetation is is dense, dense, the the noise noise level level is isth thee lowest lowest (in (in a range a range of 46 of 46dBA–50 dBA–50 dBA dBA and and 30 dBA–4530 dBA–45 dBA). dBA).

Figure 12. Acoustic map within the boundaries of the Podzamcze Park. Source: Own elaboration based on Acoustic Map of Olsztyn [93].

4.4.2.FigureFigure Test 12. 12. I.AcousticAcoustic Results map mapof Evaluation within within the the ofboundaries boundaries SPL Measurements of of th thee Podzamcze and Characteristic Park. Source: Source: Own OwnSounds elaboration elaboration in thebasedbased Podzamcze on on Acoustic Acoustic Park Map Map of of Olsztyn Olsztyn [93]. [93]. In the Podzamcze Park, 38 measurement points were designated for Test I/a. In the 4.4.2.4.4.2. Test Test I. I. Results Results of of Evaluation Evaluation of of SPL SPL Measurements Measurements and and Characteristic Characteristic Sounds Sounds in in the leaflessPodzamcze period, Park point 23 is the quietest, and point 28 is the loudest. In the leafy period, pointsthe Podzamcze 4, 5, and 23 Park are the quietest, and point 30 is the loudest. In the leafless period, the In the Podzamcze Park, 38 measurement points were designated for Test I/a. In the loudestIn areathe Podzamczewas located Park, in the 38 north-eastern measurement (points points 28–30) were anddesignated south-eastern for Test part I/a. of In the the leafless period, point 23 is the quietest, and point 28 is the loudest. In the leafy period, parkleafless (points period, 35, 38).point These 23 is places the quietest, are near and the pointlargest 28 road is the intersections loudest. In in the the leafy city period,center points 4, 5, and 23 are the quietest, and point 30 is the loudest. In the leafless period, the andpoints around 4, 5, theand old 23 town.are the In quietest, the leafy and period point in 30 points is the 28 loudest. and 29, In and the 36, leafless and 37, period, the per- the loudest area was located in the north-eastern (points 28–30) and south-eastern part of the ceivedloudest noise area level was locateddecreased, in the while north-eastern in point 30 (points it increased, 28–30) and and in south-eastern point 35 it was part almost of the park (points 35, 38). These places are near the largest road intersections in the city center park (points 35, 38). These places are near the largest road intersections in the city center atand the aroundsame level. the oldLarger town. differences In the leafy between period perceived in points noise 28 and levels 29, in and the 36, leafless and 37, and the leafyand aroundperiod are the observed old town. in In points the leafy 3, 6, period 21, 25, in28, points 29. The 28 analysisand 29, andof both 36, andperiods 37, theshows per- ceived noise level decreased, while in point 30 it increased, and in point 35 it was almost at the same level. Larger differences between perceived noise levels in the leafless and leafy period are observed in points 3, 6, 21, 25, 28, 29. The analysis of both periods shows Land 2021, 10, 66 17 of 26

perceived noise level decreased, while in point 30 it increased, and in point 35 it was almost at the same level. Larger differences between perceived noise levels in the leafless and leafy period are observed in points 3, 6, 21, 25, 28, 29. The analysis of both periods shows that in the leafless period, the loudest area was located near the car park at Nowowiejskiego Street (North-East), and near Grunwaldzka and Pieni˛eznego˙ Streets. Results for the leafy period indicate a decrease in perceived noise levels throughout the park (Figure 13). SPL measurements are provided in Figure 14. For test I/b, 5 points (1, 8, 13, 14, 23) were selected for the analysis in terms of sound structure (Figure 13). Characteristic sounds in both periods are sounds of pedestrians, cars, Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW birdsongs, water, and church bells. Test I/b showed that noise is primarily noticeable17 of 27 in points 8 and 14 in both periods. Positive sounds are generated by trees (rustling of leaves) thatand in birdsongs the leafless (points period, 1, 8, the 13, loudest 23) in both area periods, was located and water near (pointsthe car park 1, 8, 13, at Nowowiejski- 14) in the leafy egoperiod, Street less (North-East), in the leafless and period. near Grunwaldzka A positive sound and of Pieni waterężnego is generated Streets. byResults the fountain for the leafyand waterfallperiod indicate (point a 14), decrease as well in as perceived church bells noise (point levels 1). throughout Anthropological the park sounds (Figure were 13). SPLreported measurements in the leafy are period provided in points in Figure 8, 13, 14. and 14 (pedestrians).

Figure 13. Results of evaluation of the soundscape (SPL measurements and characteristic sounds) Figurepresented 13. Results in the map of evaluation of the Podzamcze of the soundscape Park in the (SPL leafless measurements and leafy period. and characteristic The loudest areassounds) are presentedlocated on in busy the streetsmap of and the nearPodzamcze the car park.Park in In th thee leafless leafless and period, leafy point period. No. The 23 is loudest the quietest, areas andare locatedpoint No. on 28busy is thestreets loudest. and near In the the leafy car period,park. In pointsthe leafless 4, 5, and period, 23 are point the No. quietest, 23 is andthe quietest, point No. and 30 pointis the No. loudest. 28 is Characteristicthe loudest. In soundsthe leafy are period, described poin byts 4, pictograms 5, and 23 are for pointsthe quietest, 1, 8, 13, and 14, point 23. No. 30 is the loudest. Characteristic sounds are described by pictograms for points 1, 8, 13, 14, 23.

For test I/b, 5 points (1, 8, 13, 14, 23) were selected for the analysis in terms of sound structure (Figure 13). Characteristic sounds in both periods are sounds of pedestrians, cars, birdsongs, water, and church bells. Test I/b showed that noise is primarily noticeable in points 8 and 14 in both periods. Positive sounds are generated by trees (rustling of leaves) and birdsongs (points 1, 8, 13, 23) in both periods, and water (points 1, 8, 13, 14) in the leafy period, less in the leafless period. A positive sound of water is generated by the fountain and waterfall (point 14), as well as church bells (point 1). Anthropological sounds were reported in the leafy period in points 8, 13, and 14 (pedestrians). Land 2021, 10, 66 18 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27

Figure 14. SPL measurements dBA—Podzamcze Park. Figure 14. SPL measurements dBA—Podzamcze Park. Result of the Paired Samples t-test in the Podzamcze Park ResultWith of thethe assumed Paired significanceSamples t-Test level ( αin= the 0.05), Podzamcze the value p < Park 0.00001 was obtained as a result of the paired-samples t-test. ThereWith wasthe aassumed significant significance increase in the level noise (α level = 0.05), in the the leafless value period p < 0.00001 (M = 43.64, was obtained as aSD result = 7.48 of) compared the paired-samples to the leafy period t-test. (M = 40.34, SD = 7.86), t(37) = −3.77, p = 0.00058. The resultThere is was significant a significant at p < 0.05 increase (Annex 3). in the noise level in the leafless period (M = 43.64, SD =4.4.3. 7.48) Test compared II. Interview to withthe leafy Park Users period in the (M Podzamcze = 40.34, SD Park = 7.86), t(37) = −3.77, p = 0.00058. The resultResults is significant of the interview at p < 0.05 with park(Annex users 3). in the Podzamcze Park are depicted in the mental map (Figure 15). According to the users, the noisiest and unpleasant place in the 4.4.3.park isTest the entranceII. Interview from Grunwaldzka with Park StreetUsers (points in the 35, Podzamcze 36), Pieni˛eznego˙ Park Street (point 38), and Nowowiejski Street (point 27–30), and areas bordering on the old town (point 31). A waterfallResults and twoof the fountains interview (points with 10–13) park and users the center in the of the Podzamcze park (points Park 14–21) are were depicted in the mentalconsidered map quiet (Figure places free15). ofAccording noise, characterized to the users, by positive the noisiest sounds. and unpleasant place in the park is the entrance from Grunwaldzka Street (points 35, 36), Pieniężnego Street (point 38), and Nowowiejski Street (point 27–30), and areas bordering on the old town (point 31). A waterfall and two fountains (points 10–13) and the center of the park (points 14–21) were considered quiet places free of noise, characterized by positive sounds. Land 2021, 10, 66 19 of 26 Land 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27

Figure 15. Mental map of the Podzamcze Park. Respondents identified noisy spaces (red) and Figure 15. Mental map of the Podzamcze Park. Respondents identified noisy spaces (red) and noise- noise-freefree and positive-sound and positive-soundinging spaces spaces(green). (green). 5. Guidelines and Recommendations 5. Guidelines and Recommendations In order to formulate guidelines for future design, it becomes crucial to analyze the areaIn in order terms to of formulate the soundscape, guidelines as for demonstrated future design, by it thebecomes results crucial of our to research.analyze the The significancearea in terms of of characteristicthe soundscape, sounds, as demonstrated background by noises, the results and of information our research. contained The sig- in them,nificance identification of characteristic of noise sounds, sources, background quiet zones, noises, and and pleasant information sounds contained provide in thethem, basis foridentification the analysis of ofnoise the sources, sound of quiet a given zones, area and [97 pleasant]. sounds provide the basis for the analysisManagement of the sound recommendations of a given area [97]. and guidelines were formulated to preserve the exist- ing valuableManagement sounds, recommendations and to ensure thatand newlyguidelines introduced were formulated sounds will to preserve be consistent the ex- with them.isting Revitalizationvaluable sounds, of publicand to spaces ensure including that newly soundscape introduced improvement sounds will consistsbe consistent of shap- with them. Revitalization of public spaces including soundscape improvement consists of ing new sound quality, social, cultural, and economic revival and spatial reconstruction, shaping new sound quality, social, cultural, and economic revival and spatial reconstruc- restoration of harmony and identity of the place, and improvement of the quality of life. tion, restoration of harmony and identity of the place, and improvement of the quality of In the revitalization process, it is important to take into account the natural conditions life. In the revitalization process, it is important to take into account the natural conditions of the area. Soundscape quality can be improved by among others removal of sound of the area. Soundscape quality can be improved by among others removal of sound ad- advertisements, promotion of bicycle and bus transport, separation of bicycle and walking vertisements, promotion of bicycle and bus transport, separation of bicycle and walking paths, construction of bypasses, exclusion of traffic areas, installation of acoustic screens, paths, construction of bypasses, exclusion of traffic areas, installation of acoustic screens, establishment of green areas, including pocket parks and sensory gardens [97], as well establishment of green areas, including pocket parks and sensory gardens [97], as well as as creating vertical walls, sound barriers from trees and shrubs, spatial installations, and creating vertical walls, sound barriers from trees and shrubs, spatial installations, and sound walks [98–100]. In landscape design practice, the spatial arrangement of different sound walks [98–100]. In landscape design practice, the spatial arrangement of different elementselements should be perceived perceived as as impr improvingoving the the quality quality of of soundscapes soundscapes [18]. [18 ]. The recommendations are are based based on on two two pillar pillarss of of the the proposed proposed design design activities. activities. The The firstfirst concernsconcerns reductionreduction ofof undesirableundesirable sounds,sounds, andand thethe secondsecond thethe introductionintroduction ofof desirabledesir- soundsable sounds to the to parks.the parks. A similarA similar solution solution is is proposed proposed by Cerwén Cerwén et et al. al. [19]. [19 ].We We propose propose similarsimilar solutionssolutions forfor placesplaces locatedlocated atat thethe entrances entrances to to parks, parks, bordering bordering on on main main streets streets and locatedand located near near the streetthe street space. space. Reduction Reduction of undesirable of undesirable sounds sounds is proposed is proposed to beto be obtained ob- through,tained through, among among others, others, the use the of use several of seve soundral sound barriers, barriers, assuming assuming the the use use of of various var- formsious forms of vegetation of vegetation (Figure (Figure 16). The16). introductionThe introduction of desirable of desirable sounds sounds is recommended, is recom- alongmended, with along so-called with so-called visual masking, visual masking, including including the use ofthe high-density use of high-density vegetation vegeta- as well astion deciduous as well as treedeciduous and shrub tree and species, shrub grasses, species, and grasses, perennials and perennials with leaves with rustling leaves rus- in the windtling in (Figure the wind 16). (Figure Planning 16). such Planning a structure, such a fromstructure, dense from plant dense forms plant right forms next right to the next street stripto the to street less densestrip to forms less dense introducing forms introd additionalucing soundsadditional (closer sounds to the(closer center to the of thecenter park), willof the obtain park), the will effect obtain of betterthe effect perception of better of perception the soundscape. of the soundscape. From an acoustic From an point acoustic of view, it is ideal to place a vertical screen as close to the source of noise (the road) as possible, Land 2021Land ,202010, 66, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 2027 of 26

point of view, it is ideal to place a vertical screen as close to the source of noise (the road) althoughas possible, this although is not always this is possible, not always as shownpossible, in as Figure shown 16 in—its Figure position 16—its is position influenced is by influenced by landscape design requirements regarding the shaping of the street space. landscape design requirements regarding the shaping of the street space.

Figure 16. Model example for the Jakubowo park: a plant barrier solution in different zones depending on the distance Figure 16. Model example for the Jakubowo park: a plant barrier solution in different zones depending on the distance from the main street, and introduction of positive sounds. Source: authors. from the main street, and introduction of positive sounds. Source: authors. The following management guidelines and recommendations were developed for the Theimprovement following of management the quality of guidelines the soundscape and recommendations in the analyzed parks. were developed for the improvementJakubowo of Park the struggles qualityof with the the soundscape problem of in noise the analyzedoverload at parks. its borders with main roads.Jakubowo This is Parknot astruggles positive factor, with theconsiderin problemg that of noisethe main overload function at of its the borders park is with recre- main roads.ation Thisand relaxation. is not a positive Moreover, factor, the considering park is used thatby patients the main from function a nearby of thehospital, park and is recre- ationsuch and noise relaxation. levels may Moreover, not only be the conducive park is used to relaxation, by patients but frommay worsen a nearby their hospital, health and suchcondition. noise levelsThe results may also not onlyshowed be that conducive the greenery to relaxation, (lower forms but and may transparent worsen their struc- health condition.ture), particularly The results in the also area showed adjacent that to the the transportation greenery (lower areas, forms provides and transparentan insufficient struc- ture),barrier particularly to sounds. in A thenoise area barrier adjacent should to thebe pl transportationanted as close to areas, the noise provides source an as insufficient possi- barrierble, along to sounds. the borders A noise with barrier main shouldroads. On be plantedthe other as hand, close we to thepropose noise to source take into as possible, ac- alongcount the the borders issues of with safety main and roads. visibility, On the e.g., other in the hand, road we lane propose and at tothe take entrances into account to the the issuespark, of as safetywell as and to refer visibility, to the e.g.,principles in the adopted road lane in andlandscape at the architecture. entrances to For the this park, park, as well asit to is refer proposed to the to principles graduate adoptedvegetation in landscapedepending architecture.on its density For and this height. park, The it is sound proposed tovalues graduate of the vegetation park should depending be protected, on its densityespecially and around height. ponds The soundand dense values groups of the of park shouldtrees. be protected, especially around ponds and dense groups of trees. Kusoci´nskiegoParkKusocińskiego Park isis functionallyfunctionally diverse, diverse, attracting attracting users users of ofall allages. ages. The Thepark’s park’s greenerygreenery is is varied varied inin termsterms of species species and and levels levels (perennials, (perennials, shrubs, shrubs, low low trees, trees, tall trees). tall trees). This is a factor reducing the average perceived sound intensity in the leafy period. The This is a factor reducing the average perceived sound intensity in the leafy period. The improvement of the quality of the soundscape in the Kusocińskiego Park requires an in- improvement of the quality of the soundscape in the Kusoci´nskiegoPark requires an crease in the density of trees and shrubs at the park’s borders (in its central and in south- increase in the density of trees and shrubs at the park’s borders (in its central and in south- eastern parts). Balancing this with safety issues associated with planning the vegetation easternat the parts).borders Balancing of the park this and with near safety the street issues zone associated is a common with planning problem. theThis vegetation park is at thedivided borders by of a thestreet park line and creating near thea double street risk zone related is a common not only problem. to noise, but This also park to isdirect divided byroad a street traffic line (there creating are two a double large crossroads risk related nearby). not only In this to noise,case, in but addition also to to direct visual road mask- traffic (thereing, we are propose two large the crossroadsapplication of nearby). the principles In this of case, traffic in calming addition measure to visual design. masking, we proposePodzamcze the application Park. Traffic of the is the principles main source of traffic of unpleasant calming measuresounds. In design. some parts of the park,Podzamcze vegetation Park. effectivelyTraffic isreduces the main traffic source noise of and unpleasant the buzz sounds.generated In by some the users parts of of the park,the old vegetation town. On effectively the other hand, reduces the trafficnorth-easter noisen, and eastern, the buzz and generatedsouthern parts by the of the users park of the oldlack town. dense On tree the stands. other Fountains hand, the and north-eastern, a waterfall have eastern, undoubtedly and southern improved parts the of sound the park lackquality dense of treethe area. stands. This Fountains part of the andpark, a cons waterfallidering have positively undoubtedly rated sounds improved in test theII and sound quality of the area. This part of the park, considering positively rated sounds in test II and the opinion of park users, should be protected. For the central part of the park, we suggest Land 2021, 10, 66 21 of 26

introducing elements that generate desirable sounds, including the use of shrub species, grasses, and perennials with leaves rustling in the wind.

6. Discussion In the course of development of sound ecology, initiated by R. M. Schafer, numerous research projects have examined soundscapes, and various methods of research have been developed, including conducting acoustic measurements as well as phonographic recordings, soundwalks, and interviews [73–80,84–89,98,99]. A large library of descriptions and recordings of the soundscape of large and small cities, suburban areas, parks, and gardens has been created. Conscious soundscape design, aimed at improving the sound environments of built-up areas, is also extremely important in planning the space of parks. The authors conducted the study by treating the space of city parks as places of necessary “oases of silence”, rest, and recreation for residents, places that should certainly not be polluted by noise. The study results indicate a relationship between functions occurring in the strict city center and their noise source and the occurrence of characteristic sounds, particularly in areas bordering the analyzed parks. This is primarily related to the communication function in parts adjacent to the main streets, where traffic is heavy. The noise level is much higher there. Similar results were obtained in other cities in Poland, namely Bydgoszcz [101] and Kraków [102]. The residential and service function does not affect noise generation to such an extent as the transportation function, evident in the Podzamcze Park and Kusoci´nskiego Park. The above conclusions are confirmed by the analysis of the acoustic map and our own measurements, as well as interviews with park users. The noise level decreases with growing distance from the main noise source, i.e., the street, as also determined by Szczepa´nskaet al. in zones of municipal housing estates in Olsztyn [103]. Regarding the perception of noise-related discomfort, results of the interviews with users presented in mental maps show that the area of noise perception is slightly larger than in the case of the first two tests (results from the acoustic map and measurements). On the other hand, when users are among compact greenery, the situation changes, although the measurements do not show large differences. This is probably due to the psychological influence of vegetation (people feel good and safe among greenery), as also observed by Brambilla and Maffei [104] and Van Renterghem [62], who showed the importance of the compliance of sounds heard in parks with the expectations of visitors and audiovisual interaction with regard to the sound pressure level. Moreover, the smell of trees may play an important role in the perception of noise [105]. This factor, however, was not taken into account in the research conducted in the parks in Olsztyn. Results of the interview also confirm that the perception of sound by inhabitants is influenced by well-designed spaces with a large variety of species and plant forms. Such places were often marked as more sound-friendly. Studies comparing conditions of leafless and leafy periods regarding the impact of vegetation on noise reduction are scarce. Our research revealed a significant difference between values obtained by measurements of sound pressure levels (SPL, LAeq) in the leafless and leafy periods in three parks in Olsztyn. Out of all three parks, the largest difference between the two periods was determined for the Jakubowo Park (12.02 dBA), and the smallest for the Podzamcze Park (3.31 dBA). This suggests that vegetation in the leafless state contributed to noise inhibition less than in the leafy state. According to the results of the evaluation of characteristic sounds in all parks, back- ground sounds in the leafless and leafy periods included the noise of the wind (positive feeling) and the noise of cars and traffic (negative feeling). Characteristic sounds in the leafless period were associated with seasonal works (Jakubowo Park, Podzamcze Park), pedestrians (all parks), cars (all parks), birdsongs (Kusocinskiego Park), and a waterfall (Podzamcze Park). Characteristic sounds in the leafy period, in addition to those occurring in the leafless period, are sounds generated by the leaves of trees (in all parks), sounds of water in fountains (Podzamcze Park and Kusoci´nskiegoPark), and sounds of water Land 2021, 10, 66 22 of 26

in the water bodies (in all parks). The sounds of leafy trees and water are positive. The role of positive sounds of water and plant sounds is also emphasized by, among others, Liu et al. [70], and Van Renterghem et al. [72]. Van Renterghem et al. [72] point out that interactively composed natural soundscapes mask road noise. According to Axelsson et al. [106], however, the use of water sounds to mask street noise may affect the audibility of not only undesirable but also desirable sounds. Our study results show that sounds are always present in all three parks include birdsongs and car and vehicle sounds. The research results confirm the necessity of park space design aimed at reducing noise levels, particularly in zones at the border with transport areas, and the introduction of elements generating positive sounds throughout the park, especially in its central parts. Regarding the problem of the relation between the density of vegetation and potential for noise reduction, a wide variation of opinions is found concerning the effectiveness of plantings as noise attenuators. Many authors suggest the use of compact tree or hedge forms of high density [107–111]. According to Yasin et al. [112] citing Kragh [113], the distance between trees from 3 to 25 m has only a slight effect on noise. Authors of other studies also emphasize the role of evergreen species, especially in all-season conditions. For example, Samara and Tsitsoni [64] suggest planting evergreen shrubs along the roadside to create a living barrier of vegetation sufficiently dense to prevent any casual observer from seeing the road through the vegetation. Another solution is to design vegetation in strips in several rows. Such solutions are appropriate in spaces related to transport, but given the structure of city parks, especially in city centers, such solutions are not always possible due to the specificity of parks (style, history, relations with the environment), as well as for ecological (biodiversity) and aesthetic reasons (inclusion of colors, textures, and plant structures). Therefore, in our recommendations, we propose solutions taking into account the specificity of parks, and not only the density of vegetation (like visual masking [19] or vertical garden/vegetation walls). The diversity of forms and species obtained through the use of trees and shrubs next to evergreen plants, and planning of low greenery (ornamental grasses, perennials) affects the perception of the soundscape by park users (the psychological aspect is discussed above, e.g., [19]). Although the measurements of the effect of noise reduction in such a situation may suggest otherwise, the potential user of the park may perceive the noise reduction. Therefore, when designing or revitalizing parks, it is worth taking into account the multidimensionality and complexity of planning. As stated by Samara and Tsitsoni [64], the efficiency of tree barriers depends not only on the expected acoustic results, but also on other factors such as safety, maintenance, aesthetics, cost, and acceptance by local communities. The plants used, and methods of manufacturing noise barriers can be combined in a variety of ways.

7. Conclusions The objective of this study was to analyze the soundscape of three parks as a part of the landscape planning process to determine the directions of re-design of places most exposed to noise. The main conclusions are as follows: • Regarding the spatial and functional structure of the city center in Olsztyn and the surroundings of parks, a direct relation exists between the location of parks, functions of the environment, and noise sources, whereas the residential function has a slightly smaller impact than the transportation function. • The analysis of the acoustic map showed similar results as SPL measurements. Both analyses indicated a high risk of noise, especially close to the external borders of all three parks. • As confirmed by the conducted t-test, the results of SPL measurements in the leafless and leafy period showed that vegetation in the leafless period contributed to noise inhibition less than vegetation in the leafy period. • The analysis of characteristic sounds and background sounds in two periods showed variable perception of these sounds, whereas positive sounds (birds singing, water noise, wind noise) were perceived more intensively during the leafy period. Land 2021, 10, 66 23 of 26

• There is a relation between the visual and sound perception of parks from the psycho- logical point of view, as confirmed by the results of interviews with park users. • The procedure of pre-design analyses in the field of soundscape planning presented in the study should be treated as a proposal to include this type of analysis in the design of urban spaces, particularly parks. • The study results also confirm the need to introduce additional analyses taking into account the soundscape in the case of revitalization or renovation of public spaces, including city parks.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445 X/10/1/66/s1. Author Contributions: Conceptualization A.J., methodology A.J., N.M., S.B., analysis N.M., investi- gation N.M., writing preparation and visualization A.J., N.M., K.K., S.B., E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the fact that respondents and their privacy were not violated. Responses were recorded without any personal data. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Cost Action CA17133—Implementing nature based solutions for creating a resourceful circular city and the project APVV SK-PL-18-0022 LIVA—The Concept of livability in the context of small towns funded by NAWA—Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange and SRDA—Slovak Research and Development Agency for enabling the work and interaction between the researchers required for the article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References 1. Schafer, R.M. The New Soundscape; Associated Music Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1969; pp. 6–13. 2. Schafer, R.M. Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World; Inner Traditions/Bear: New York, NY, USA, 1982; p. 15. 3. Bernat, S. Krajobraz D´zwi˛ekowyjako Przedmiot Zainteresowa´nGeografii; UMCS: Lublin, Poland, 2015; p. 14. 4. Bernat, S. (Ed.) D´zwi˛ekw Krajobrazie Jako Przedmiot Bada´nInterdyscyplinarnych; UMCS: Lublin, Poland, 2008; p. 14. 5. Małkowska, N. Krajobraz D´zwi˛ekowy-AnalizaPrzestrzeni Ulicznych na Przykładzie Parków w Olsztynie; Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn: Olsztyn, Poland, 2018. 6. Porteous, J.D.; Mastin, J.F. Soundscape. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 1985, 2, 169–186. 7. Southworth, M. The sonic environment of cities. Environ. Behav. 1969, 1, 49–70. 8. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 12913-1:2014 Acoustics—Soundscape—Part 1: Definition and Conceptual Framework; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. 9. Jeon, J.Y.; Hong, J.Y. Classification of urban park soundscapes through perceptions of the acoustical environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 141, 100–111. [CrossRef] 10. Kang, J.; Aletta, F.; Gjestland, T.T.; Brown, L.A.; Botteldooren, D.; Schulte-Fortkamp, B.; Lercher, P.; van Kamp, I.; Genuit, K.; Fiebig, A.; et al. Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment. Build. Environ. 2016, 108, 284–294. [CrossRef] 11. Raimbault, M.; Dubois, D. Urban soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cities 2005, 22, 339–350. [CrossRef] 12. Brown, A.L.; Muhar, A. An approach to the acoustic design of outdoor space. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2004, 47, 827–842. [CrossRef] 13. Meng, Q.; Kang, J. Effect of sound-related activities on human behaviours and acoustic comfort in urban open spaces. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 481–493. [CrossRef] 14. Preis, A.; Koci´nski,J.; Hafke-Dys, H.; Wrzosek, M. Audio-visual interactions in environment assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 523, 191–200. [CrossRef] 15. Basner, M.; Babisch, W.; Davis, A.; Brink, M.; Clark, C.; Janssen, S.; Stansfeld, S. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet 2014, 383, 1325–1332. [CrossRef] 16. Aletta, F.; Oberman, T.; Kang, J. Associations between positive health-related effects and soundscapes perceptual constructs: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2392. [CrossRef] 17. Fowler, M.D. Soundscape as a design strategy for landscape architectural praxis. Des. Stud. 2013, 34, 111–128. [CrossRef] 18. Liu, J.; Kang, J.; Behm, H.; Luo, T. Effects of landscape on soundscape perception: Soundwalks in city parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 123, 30–40. [CrossRef] Land 2021, 10, 66 24 of 26

19. Cerwén, G.; Kreutzfeldt, J.; Wingren, C. Soundscape actions: A tool for noise treatment based on three workshops in landscape architecture. Front. Archit. Res. 2017, 6, 504–518. [CrossRef] 20. Pouya, S. The Role of Landscape Architecture on Soundscape Experience. Turk. J. For. Sci. 2017, 1, 183–193. [CrossRef] 21. Cerwén, G.; Wingren, C.; Qviström, M. Evaluating soundscape intentions in landscape architecture: A study of competition entries for a new cemetery in Järva, Stockholm. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 1253–1275. [CrossRef] 22. Carles, J.L.; Barrio, I.L.; de Lucio, J.V. Sound influence on landscape values. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 43, 191–200. [CrossRef] 23. Viollon, S.; Lavandier, C.; Drake, C. Influence of visual setting on sound ratings in an urban environment. Appl. Acoust. 2002, 63, 493–511. [CrossRef] 24. Wang, R.; Zhao, J. A good sound in the right place: Exploring the effects of auditory-visual combinations on aesthetic preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126356. [CrossRef] 25. D’Alessandro, F.; Evangelisti, L.; Guattari, C.; Grazieschi, G.; Orsini, F. Influence of visual aspects and other features on the soundscape assessment of a University external area. Build. Acoust. 2018, 25, 199–217. [CrossRef] 26. Zhang, S.; Zhao, X.; Zenz, Z.; Qiu, X. The Influence of Audio-Visual Interactions on Psychological Responses of Young People in Urban Green Areas: A Case Study in Two Parks in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1845. [CrossRef] 27. Watts, G.R.; Pheasant, R.J.; Horoshenkov, K.V. Predicting perceived tranquillity in urban parks and open spaces. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 585–594. [CrossRef] 28. Nozy´nski,S.˙ Zanurzeni w Mediach. Srodowisko´ Audialne. Kilka Uwag na Temat Otoczenia D´zwi˛ekowego; UAM: Pozna´n,Poland, 2016; pp. 185–193. 29. Cerwén, G.; Mossberg, F. Implementation of quiet areas in Sweden. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 134. [CrossRef] 30. Brambilla, G.; Gallo, V.; Zambon, G. The Soundscape Quality in Some Urban Parks in Milan, Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 2348–2369. [CrossRef] 31. Brambilla, G.; Gallo, V.; Asdrubali, F.; D’Alessandro, F. The perceived quality of soundscape in three urban parks in Rome. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 134, 832–839. [CrossRef][PubMed] 32. Kang, J. Urban Sound Environment; CRC Press: London, UK, 2006. 33. Rehan, R.M. The phonic identity of the city urban soundscape for sustainable spaces. HBRC J. 2016, 12, 337–349. [CrossRef] 34. Jia, Y.; Ma, H.; Kang, J. Characteristics and evaluation of urban soundscapes worthy of preservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 253, 109722. [CrossRef] 35. Steele, D. Bridging the Gap from Soundscape Research to Urban Planning and Design Practice: How Do Professionals Conceptu- alize, Work with, and Seek Information about Sound? Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2018. 36. Kandemir, Ö.; Özçevik Bilen, A. An Experience in Architectural Design Studio Regarding the Concept of Soundscape. Megaron 2020, 15, 13–24. [CrossRef] 37. Alves, S.; Estévez-Mauriz, L.; Aletta, F.; Echevarria-Sanchez, G.M.; Puyana Romero, V. Towards the integration of urban sound planning in urban development processes: The study of four test sites within the SONORUS project. Noise Mapp. 2015, 2, 57–85. [CrossRef] 38. Jennings, P.; Cain, R. A framework for improving urban soundscapes. Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 293–299. [CrossRef] 39. Environmental Protection Law Act from 27 April 2001. J. Laws 2008, No. 25, Item 150. Available online: https://esdac.jrc.ec. europa.eu (accessed on 10 September 2020). 40. European Parliament and Council. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise; European Parliament and Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu (accessed on 10 September 2020). 41. Bernat, S. Analysis of Social Conflicts in Poland’s Soundscape as a Challenge to Socio-Acoustics. Arch. Acoust. 2016, 41, 415–426. [CrossRef] 42. Bernat, S. Obszary ciche w aglomeracjach. In Obszary Metropolitalne We Współczesnym Srodowisku´ Geograficznym: 58. Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego, Łód´z2010; Barwi´nski,M., Ed.; Uniwersytet Łódzki: Łód´z,Poland, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 305–314. 43. Bernat, S. D´zwi˛ekw krajobrazie. Podej´scieGeograficzne; UMCS: Lublin, Poland, 2015; p. 234. 44. European Environment Agency. Quiet Areas in Europe-the Environment Unaffected by Noise Pollution; EEA Report No 14/2016; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016. 45. European Environment Agency. Noise in Europe 2014; EEA Report No 10/2014; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. 46. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [CrossRef] 47. Konijnendijk, C.C.; Annerstedt, M.; Busse Nielsen, A.; Maruthaveeran, S. Benefits of Urban Parks a Systematic Review; International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration: Copenhagen, Denmark; Alnarp, Sweden, 2013; pp. 1–70. 48. Madureira, H.; Nunes, F.; Oliveira, J.V.; Cormier, L.; Madureira, T. Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 56–64. [CrossRef] 49. Jeon, J.Y.; Hong, J.Y.; Lavandier, C.; Lafon, J.; Axelsson, Ö.; Hurtig, M. A cross-national comparison in assessment of urban park soundscapes in France, Korea, and Sweden through laboratory experiments. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 133, 107–117. [CrossRef] 50. Lam, K.; Ng, S.; Hui, W.; Chan, P. Environmental Quality of Urban Parks and Open Spaces in Hong Kong. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 111, 55–73. [CrossRef][PubMed] 51. Payne, S.R. Are perceived soundscapes within urban parks restorative? J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123, 3809. [CrossRef] Land 2021, 10, 66 25 of 26

52. Watts, G.; Pheasant, R.; Horoshenkov, K. Tranquil spaces in a metropolitan area. In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2010, Sydney, Australia, 23–27 August 2010. 53. Szopi´nska,E.; Kazak, J.; Kempa, O.; Rubaszek, J. Spatial Form of Greenery in Strategic Environmental Management in the Context of Urban Adaptation to Climat Change. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 2845–2856. [CrossRef] 54. Kiełkowska, J.; Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K.; Kazak, J.; Szewra´nski,S.; van Hoof, J. Urban Addaptation to Climat Change Plans and Policies–the Conceptual Framework of a Methodological Approach. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 50–62. [CrossRef] 55. Fang, C.; Ling, D. Investigation of the noise reduction provided by tree belts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 187–195. [CrossRef] 56. Lugten, M.; Karacaoglu, M.; White, K.; Kang, J.; Steemers, K. Improving the soundscape quality of urban areas exposed to aircraft noise by adding moving water and vegetation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2018, 144, 2906. [CrossRef] 57. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [CrossRef] 58. Milliken, S. Ecosystem services in urban environments. In Nature Based Strategies for Urban and Building Sustainability;Pérez, G., Perini, K., Eds.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 17–27. 59. Rowe, D.B. Greenroofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2100–2110. [CrossRef][PubMed] 60. Azkorra, Z.; Pérez, G.; Coma, J.; Cabeza, L.F.; Bures, S.; Álvaro, J.E. Evaluation of green walls as a passive acoustic insulation system for buildings. Appl. Acoust. 2015, 89, 46–56. [CrossRef] 61. Pérez, G.; Coma, J.; Barrenche, C.; de Gracia, A.; Urrestarazu, M.; Burés, S.; Cabeza, L.F. Acoustic insulation capacity of Vertical Greenery Systems for buildings. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 110, 218–226. [CrossRef] 62. Van Renterghem, T. Towards explaining the positive effect of vegetation on the perception of environmental noise. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 133–144. [CrossRef] 63. Nilsson, M.E.; Bengtsson, J.; Klæboe, R. Environmental Methods for Transport Noise Reduction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. 64. Samara, T.; Tsitsoni, T. The effects of vegetation on reducing traffic noise from a city ring road. Noise Control Eng. J. 2011, 59, 68–74. [CrossRef] 65. Sadowski, J. Podstawy Akustyki Urbanistycznej; Arkady: Warszawa, Poland, 1982; pp. 1–306. 66. Zimny, H. Ochrona i Kształtowanie Zieleni w Aglomeracjach Miejskich; LOP: Warszawa, Poland, 1978; pp. 14–73. 67. Czerwieniec, M.; Lewi´nska,J. Ziele´nw Mie´scie; Instytut Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Komunalnej: Kraków, Poland, 2000; pp. 40–41. 68. Tse, M.S.; Chau, C.K.; Choy, Y.S.; Tsui, W.K.; Chan, C.N.; Tang, S.K. Perception of urban park soundscape. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012, 131, 2762–2771. [CrossRef] 69. Liu, J.; Kang, J. Soundscape design in city parks: Exploring the relationships between soundscape composition parameters and physical and psychoacoustic parameters. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2015, 23, 102–112. [CrossRef] 70. Liu, J.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, Y.; Luo, T. Soundscape effects on visiting experience in city park: A case study in Fuzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 38–47. [CrossRef] 71. Jo, H.I.; Jeon, J.Y. The influence of human behavioral characteristics on soundscape perception in urban parks: Subjective and observational approaches. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 203, 103890. [CrossRef] 72. Van Renterghem, T.; Vanhecke, K.; Filipan, K.; Sun, K.; De Pessemier, T.; De Coensel, B.; Wout, J.; Botteldooren, D. Interactive soundscape augmentation by natural sounds in a noise polluted urban park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 194, 103705. [CrossRef] 73. Axelsson, Ö. How to measure soundscape quality. In Proceedings of the Euronoise 2015, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 31 May–3 June 2015; pp. 1477–1481. 74. Aletta, F.; Kang, J. Soundscape approach integrating noise mapping techniques: A case study in Brighton, UK. Noise Mapp. 2015, 2, 1–12. [CrossRef] 75. Berglund, B.; Nilsson, M.E. On a tool for measuring soundscape quality in urban residential areas. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2006, 92, 938–944. 76. Lavia, L.; Witchel, H.J.; Aletta, F.; Steffens, J.; Fiebig, A.; Kang, J.; Howes, C.; Healey, P.G. Non-Participant Observation Methods for Soundscape Design and Urban Planning. In Handbook of Research on Perception-Driven Approaches to Urban Assessment and Design; Aletta, F., Xiao, J., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 73–99. 77. Mitchell, A.; Oberman, T.; Aletta, F.; Erfanian, M.; Kachlicka, M.; Lionello, M.; Kang, J. The Soundscape Indices (SSID) Protocol: A Method for Urban Soundscape Surveys—Questionnaires with Acoustical and Contextual Information. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2397. [CrossRef] 78. Jeon, J.Y.; Hong, J.Y.; Lee, P.J. Soundwalk approach to identify urban soundscapes individually. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 134, 803–812. [CrossRef] 79. Hong, J.Y.; Jeon, J.Y. Soundscape mapping in urban contexts using GIS techniques. In Proceedings of the INTERNOISE 2014-43rd International Congress on Noise Control Engineering: Improving the World through Noise Control, Melbourne, Australia, 16–19 November 2014. 80. Kang, J.; Aletta, F.; Margaritis, E.; Yang, M. A model for implementing soundscape maps in smart cities. Noise Mapp. 2018, 5, 46–59. [CrossRef] 81. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 12913-3:2019 Acoustics—Soundscape—Part 3: Data Analysis; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. 82. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 Acoustics—Soundscape—Part 2: Data Collection and Reporting Requirements; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Land 2021, 10, 66 26 of 26

83. Fastl, H.; Zwicker, E. Psychoacoustics-Facts and Models, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007. 84. Fiebig, A.; Guidanti, S.; Goehrke, A. Psychoacoustic evaluation of traffic noise. In Proceedings of the NAG-DAGA 2009 Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 23–26 March 2009. 85. Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Axelsson, Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 149, 65–74. [CrossRef] 86. Papadimitriou, K.D.; Mazaris, A.D.; Kallimanis, A.S.; Pantis, J.D. Cartographic Representation of the Sonic Environment. Cartogr. J. 2009, 46, 126–135. [CrossRef] 87. Vogiatzis, K.; Remy, N. From environmental noise abatement to soundscape creation through strategic noise mapping in medium urban agglomerations in South Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 482–483, 420–431. [CrossRef][PubMed] 88. McGregor, I.; Leplâtre, G.; Turner, P.; Flint, T. Soundscape Mapping: A Tool for Evaluating Sounds and Auditory Environment. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD-2010), Washington, DC, USA, 9–15 June 2010. 89. Marry, S. Assessment of Urban Soundscapes. Organ. Sound 2011, 16, 245–255. [CrossRef] 90. Butler, T. A walk of art: The potential of the sound walk as practice in cultural geography. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2006, 7, 889–908. [CrossRef] 91. Adams, M.; Bruce, N.; Cain, R.; Jennings, P.; Carlyle, A.; Cusack, P.; Hume, K.; Plack, C. Soundwalking as a methodology for understanding soundscapes. In Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics Spring Conference 2008, Reading, UK, 10–11 April 2008; pp. 552–558. 92. Aletta, F.; Margaritis, E.; Filipan, K.; Romero, V.P.; Axelsson, Ö.; Kang, J. Characterization of the soundscape in Valley Gardens, Brighton, by a soundwalk prior to an urban design intervention. In Proceedings of the Euronoise Conference 2015, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 31 May–3 June 2015; pp. 1547–1552. 93. Acoustic Map. Mapa Akustyczna. Available online: https://www.olsztyn.eu/urzad-miasta/aktualnosci/article/mapa- akustyczna.html (accessed on 2 May 2018). 94. Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment of 14 June 2007 on the permissible noise levels in the environment. J. Laws 2014, item 112. Available online: www.infor.pl/akt-prawny/DZU.2014.013.0000112 (accessed on 10 September 2020). 95. Tuan, Y.-F. Images and Mental Maps. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1975, 65, 205–212. [CrossRef] 96. Götz, N.; Holmén, J. Introduction to the theme issue: Mental maps: Geographical and historical perspectives. J. Cult. Geogr. 2018, 35, 157–161. [CrossRef] 97. Bernat, S. Zarz ˛adzaniekrajobrazem d´zwi˛ekowymmiast. Prace Kulturoznawcze 2012, 13, 19–30. 98. Oberman, T.; Jambroši´c,K.; Horvat, M.; Bojani´cObad Š´citaroci, B. Using virtual soundwalk approach for assessing sound art soundscape interventions in public spaces. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2102. [CrossRef] 99. De Winne, J.; Filipan, K.; Moens, B.; Devos, P.; Leman, M.; Botteldooren, D.; De Coensel, B. The soundscape hackathon as a methodology to accelerate co-creation of the urban public space. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1932. [CrossRef] 100. Pawłowska, K. D´zwi˛ekw krajobrazie jako przedmiot bada´ni ´srodek wyrazu w sztuce ogrodowej i architekturze krajobrazu. Prace Kulturoznawcze 2012, 13, 31–55. 101. Sztubecka, M.; Skiba, M.; Mrówczy´nska,M.; Mathias, M. Noise as a Factor of Green Areas Soundscape Creation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 999. [CrossRef] 102. Malec, M.; Klatka, S.; Kruk, E.; Ryczeket, M. An attempt to assess the impact of vegetation on the soundscape on example two urban parks in Krakow. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus 2017, 16, 167–178. [CrossRef] 103. Szczepa´nska,A.; Senetra, A.; Wasilewicz-Pszczółkowska, M. The Influence of Traffic Noise on Apartment Prices on the Example of a European Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability 2020, 12, 801. [CrossRef] 104. Brambilla, G.; Maffei, L. Responses to noise in urban parks and in rural quiet areas. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2006, 92, 881–886. 105. Ba, M.; Kang, J. Effect of a fragrant tree on the perception of traffic noise. Build. Environ. 2019, 156, 147–155. [CrossRef] 106. Axelsson, Ö.; Nilsson, M.E.; Hellström, B.; Lundén, P. A field experiment on the impact of sounds from a jet-and-basin fountain on soundscape quality in an urban park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 123, 49–60. [CrossRef] 107. Peng, J.; Bullen, R.; Kean, S. The effects of vegetation on road traffic noise. In Proceedings of the 2014 INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia, 16–19 November 2014. 108. Pathak, V.; Tripathi, B.; Mishra, V. Dynamics of traffic noise in a tropical city Varanasi and its abatement through vegetation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 146, 67–75. [CrossRef][PubMed] 109. Nilsson, M.; Klæboe, R.; Bengtsson, J.; Forssén, J.; Hornikx, M.; Van der Aa, B.; Rådsten-Ekman, M.; Defrance, J.; Jean, P.; Koussa, F.; et al. Novel Solutions for Quieter and Greener Cities; HOSANNA, Alloffset AB: Bandhagen, Sweden, 2013. 110. Fan, Y.; Bao, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Liu, J. The investigation of noise attenuation by plants and the corresponding noise-reducing spectrum. J. Environ. Health 2010, 72, 8–15. [PubMed] 111. Önder, S.; Akay, A. Reduction of Traffic Noise Pollution Effects by Using Vegetation. J. Eng. Econ. Dev. 2015, 2, 23–35. 112. Yasin, I.; Widaryanto, L.H.; Sutrisno, W. The technique of green belt bamboo constructions for highway noise effect reductions. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1456, 012006. [CrossRef] 113. Kragh, J. Road Traffic Noise Attenuation by Belts of Trees. J. Sound Vib. 1981, 74, 235–241. [CrossRef]