Basically the efforts of the listening center results in a few different graphics once I run the data through the 'R' program. I find that the bar graph is the most understandable. The listening center, I analyze 8 days for every site, and each day is split into 10 seconds for every 2 minutes. This comes down to 2 hours worth of data that I listen to. Every sound I hear has a code that I enter, like 2.4 is a truck, 9.1 is a domestic dog or 23 for thunder. When I run the results through the AMT program I can chose any code that I want highlighted on the graph. Right now I have run the program to highlight all vehicle sounds as compared to all audible noises. The nice thing about the resulting graph is that is is easy to compare different seasons at one site or to compare the same seasons at the same site. The graphs that I have included are for the same site but at different seasons. You can see that traffic is audible for a higher percentage of time than in the summer, I am going to assume that the lack of foliage in winter is what has resulted in this difference.
As you can guess being able to run this graph for almost any possible noise, man made and natural, can be both interesting and informative. The information in these graphs and in the other soundscape data can allow parks to establish base line acoustical data and allow them to make informed management decisions. Some parks like Zion have soundscape management plans, the Grand Canyon used the information to help develop air tour management plans and Yellowstone used soundscape information in their winter use plan. I encourage you to visit the NPS Natural Sounds and Night Skies website if you are interested in more information about soundscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment