It has been suggested that access to so-called “Quiet Areas” could be beneficial to subjects with health problems. A number of studies have also indicated a correlation between social deprivation and exposure to noisy environments. The European Noise Directive (END) provides a framework for identifying Quiet Areas in urban agglomerations. This study proposes a new indicator that characterises accessibility to quiet spaces, using Geographical Information System software in conjunction with END noise mapping results. This metric is applied to determine correlations between social deprivation and access to quiet areas in the city of Southampton

Barlow, Chris

Battaner-Moro, Juan

Wright, Paul

English

Solent Electronic Archive

		
	

		 	
!	∀	#∃%	&	∀
∋()∗∋∗+∗
,

∀
		−	∀∃..	/.∋0+).
	
	
	
	
			
	
	
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
Vol. 32. Pt 3. 2010 
SOCIAL DEPRIVATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO QUIET 
AREAS IN SOUTHAMPTON 
 
J. Battaner-Moro  
C. Barlow  All authors, 
P. Wright  Southampton Solent University, Southampton, UK 
  
  
 
1 INTRODUCTION  
It has been suggested that access to so-called “Quiet Areas” could be beneficial to subjects with 
health problems.  A number of studies have also indicated a correlation between social deprivation 
and exposure to noisy environments.  The European Noise Directive (END) provides a framework 
for identifying Quiet Areas in urban agglomerations.  This study proposes a new indicator  that 
characterises accessibility to quiet spaces, using Geographical Information System software in 
conjunction with END noise mapping results.  This metric is applied to determine correlations 
between social deprivation and access to quiet areas in the city of Southampton. 
 
 
2 SOCIAL DEPRIVATION AND NOISE EXPOSURE 
2.1 Deprivation indices in England  
 
In order to identify the most disadvantaged areas in England deprivation indices are used so that 
resources can be appropriately targeted. 
 
Poverty can be defined as not having enough financial means to meet needs. On the other hand, 
deprivation refers to unmet need, which is caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just 
financial. 
 
To be able to measure deprivation at a smaller spatial scale, studies have been conducted at Lower 
Super Output Area (LSOA) level. 
Super Output Areas (SOAs) are a unit of geography used in the UK for statistical analysis. They are 
developed and released by Neighbourhood Statistics. 
SOAs were created with the intention that they would not be subject to frequent boundary change. 
This makes SOAs more suitable than other geography units (such as wards) because they are less 
likely to change over time, and thus SOAs are more suitable to change over time analysis. 
There are three layers of SOAs (i.e. three different but related geography boundaries). These are: 
x Lower Layer - Minimum population 1000, mean population 1500. Built from groups of 
Output Areas. Commonly known as Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA).There are 
34,378 LSOAs in England and Wales. 
x Middle Layer - Minimum population 5000, mean population 7200. Built from Lower Layer 
SOAs. Commonly known as Middle Layer Super Output Area and abbreviated to MSOA. 
There are 7,193 MSOAs in England and Wales. 
x Upper Layer - Commonly known as Upper Layer Super Output Area (USOA). 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
The Indices of Deprivation 2007 for England take into account seven domains of deprivation4: 
 
x Income deprivation 
x Employment deprivation 
x Health deprivation and disability 
x Education, skills and training deprivation 
x Barriers to housing and services 
x Living environment and deprivation 
x Crime 
 
Each domain is assessed using a number of indicators, such as household overcrowding, criminal 
damage, houses without central heating and so on. 38 indicators have been used in total. None of 
these indicators take into account environmental noise pollution4,5. 
 
2.2 The impact of noise exposure 
It has been widely document that environmental noise has a cumulative adverse effect on health1. It 
is now accepted that continuous noise exposure above certain levels correlate with an increase in 
annoyance and sleep disturbance. Furthermore, it has been shown that environmental noise near 
schools can have a detrimental effect on the academic attainments of primary school children2. 
 
However, environmental noise exposure is not used as an indicator for social deprivation studies in 
England. Therefore the question arises: are the most vulnerable people in cities more likely to live in 
areas with a high environmental noise exposure? 
 
Subjectively it would appear that this is not necessarily the case. One needs only to walk along a 
very affluent area of London such as Knightsbridge to see that it suffers from very high levels of 
road traffic noise. 
 
Therefore it would appear that high levels of traffic noise do not deter affluent individuals to buy 
property in desirable parts of a city. There may be several reasons for this. For example wealthy 
people can afford to spend extra money on high standards of acoustic insulation, they may own 
other properties in quieter locations in which they can retire when a more tranquil environment is 
desirable or there may be a “quiet space”, such as a park, in the vicinity of their property. Following 
our previous example, one of the reasons that Knightsbridge is such a desirable location in London 
is the vicinity of Hyde Park. 
 
So the question regarding the relationship between social disadvantage and exposure to noise 
should be reassessed. It could be said that “noise poverty” reflects the lack of resources to mitigate 
noise exposure, and these resources are effective noise insulation at home and easy access to 
quiet spaces. 
 
 
3 QUIET AREAS AND THE EUROPEAN NOISE DIRECTIVE  
 
Through the realisation that noise pollution is still a worsening problem; the European Union has 
started to coordinate policies that aim to tackle this problem. It has stipulated continuous noise 
monitoring in urban agglomerations, implemented public information campaigns and requested 
Local Authorities to produce long term noise action plans. 
 
The European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment 
and management of environmental noise. Its general aim being 'to define a common approach 
intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, 
due to exposure to environmental noise'. 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
3.1 Definition of a Quiet Area 
Based on the recommendations3  from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,  
Quiet Areas are identified in agglomerations based on the selection of an appropriate, existing 
dataset, e.g. public and open spaces in the UK, and subsequent reduction of the dataset by the 
successive application of filters related to for example, land type, a pre-determined noise level (at 
least part of the candidate area must fall within the noise band < 55 dB Lday, as determined from the 
first round of noise mapping) and a minimum area (the candidate area must be at least 9 hectares). 
 
3.2 Southampton parkland 
Southampton is the largest city in the county of Hampshire on the south coast of England. It lies at 
the northernmost point of Southampton Water at the confluence of the River Test and River Itchen, 
which divides the city into an eastern and a western half, with the River Hamble joining to the south 
of the urban area. The local authority is Southampton City Council. 
For the purposes of the END, the city is part of the Southampton Agglomeration, which also 
comprises Eastleigh to the North and other smaller conurbations totalling 295,000 inhabitants. This 
paper will focus on the city of Southampton exclusively.  
Southampton's parks make it the one of the greenest cities in Southern England. Close to the Old 
Town are seven formal parks which were originally common land in medieval times. The large 133 
hectares Common, located relatively close to the city centre, is designated a Site of Special 
Scientific Interest. 
Other large parks are Mayfield Park and Riverside Park (figure 1). The table below summarises all 
parks in Southampton sorted by their extension. 
 
Name Extension (hectares) 
The Common 133.5 
Southampton Municipal 52.0 
Riverside Park 26.9 
Mayfield Park 26.2 
Peartree Green 12.1 
Mansel Park 10.0 
Green Park 6.6 
Andrews Park 6.1 
Hoglands Park 5.2 
Mayflower Park 4.6 
Freemantle Common 3.6 
Palmerston Park 3.3 
Hinkler Green 2.9 
Watts Park 2.6 
Houndwell Park 1.8 
Freemantle Lake Park 1.7 
St James Park 1.5 
Queen's Park 1.5 
 
Table 1. - Parks in Southampton 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
 
The first five parks in table 1 are larger than nine hectares. Unfortunately the results of the first 
round of END for Southampton do not include noise exposure modelling for Southampton 
Municipal, Riverside Park and Mayfield Park (figure 2). At the time of writing this the authors could 
not establish the reasons why three of the largest parks in the city were left out from the Lden 
calculations. 
From these three parks that have no END data available, Riverside Park may not be considered a 
Quiet Area due to its location under the noise footprint of Southampton-Eastleigh Airport and its 
proximity to the M27 motorway. Southampton Municipal’s is mostly occupied by a golf court and 
other sport fields. Mayfield Park is located in an area of relative low noise and could be considered 
a candidate for “Quiet Area” designation. 
There exists END noise data available for three parks larger than 9ha: the Common, Mansel Park 
and Peartree Green. Mansel Park’s Lden due to road traffic is larger than 55dB. Peartree Green’s 
Lden is also larger than 55dB but in this case rail noise is the dominant source. This leaves the 
Common as the clear candidate for “Quiet Area” designation. 
 
Therefore in this paper the Common (in the western half of the city) and Mayfield Park (in the 
eastern half) will be considered Quiet Areas for the purpose of calculating accessibility.  
 
 
 
 
Figure 1.- Southampton city Lower Super Output Area divisions and main parks 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
3.3 First round END results 
Figure 2 shows modelled Lden road noise levels for Southampton. The areas not modelled are 
shown in white and are not populated. Crucially, some of these areas are parks that may be 
candidates for Quiet Area designation. 
 
 
Figure 2.- Road noise Lden for Southampton 
 
Grid Code Lden Level (dB) 
7   
6 70.0-74.9 
5 65.0-69.9 
4 60.0-64.9 
3 55.0-59.9 
2 < 55 
 
3.3.1 Calculating mean exposure for each LSOA 
Initial noise data was sourced from the DEFRA noise model. The resulting GIS file took the form of 
semi-contiguous regions of modelled noise data, which, in itself was difficult to disaggregate back 
into the individual 10x10m grid used to model the data. Therefore, the relevant data were forced 
into a 100x100m grid, the decreased resolution being due to processing restrictions within our GIS 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
software package (MapInfo). An average for each 100x100m square was calculated from the initial 
noise data. This data was then used to calculate a mean noise level per LSOA (figure 3). 
 
 
Figure 3.- Calculated Mean Noise Exposure at LSOA level 
 
With this data in hand it is possible to search for correlations with any deprivation index. However 
noise exposure alone is not a deprivation quality, but the lack of means to combat noise exposure 
is. 
 
 
4  ACCESIBILITY TO QUIET SPACES 
4.1 The need for an accessibility metric 
As it has been mentioned, the detrimental effect that noise has on the public is not taken into 
account in social deprivation indices. We propose to use the lack of access to quiet spaces relative 
to noise exposure as an indicator of deprivation. 
 
This indicator may help planners in identifying the value of Quiet Areas in the urban social context 
and may be used as a tool to implement action plans as mandated by the END. 
 
  
 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
4.2 Combined noise exposure and accessibility metric 
In order to combine noise exposure data with accessibility the distance to the nearest Quiet Area 
(either the Common or Mayfield Park) were calculated for every LSOA. 
 
The accessibility level is then computed using the following formula: 
 
Lacc=10log(D/Dmin)     [1] 
 
Where D is the distance to the nearest Quiet Area and Dmin is the shortest from all distances D. The 
accessibility indicator is then calculated by taking the average of the Lden noise exposure and Lacc 
for each LSOA. The results are shown in figure 4 below. 
 
 
Figure 4.- Calculated accessibility indicator at LSOA level 
 
 
5 CORRELATIONS WITH DEPRIVATION INDICATORS 
All social data was sourced through the Office of National Statistics (ONS), from their 2007 dataset 
relating Indices of Deprivation, available at <http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk> 
 
The correlation test used is a Spearman’s Rank Correlation (U) test, corrected for ties. All variables 
tested for rank correlation with the proposed accessibility index: 
 
 
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics & Belgium Acoustical Society 
Noise in the Built Environment, Ghent, 29-30 April 2010 
 
 
Vol. 32. Part 3. 2010 
 
Variable correlated against accessibility indicator U 
Mean exposure     0.420** 
Score of housing in poor condition 0.063 
Score of health, deprivation and disability    -0.291** 
Score of Multiple Index of Deprivation    -0.354** 
** denotes significant correlation at U<0.01, with a two tailed test. 
 
The correlation with mean exposure is high, perhaps, not unsurprising, given how we have 
calculated our indicator The correlation with housing might be expected to be positive, but this is 
complicated by the fact that mean exposure and deprivation are not correlated (U = -0.145), and 
deprivation and housing condition are highly significantly correlated (U = -0.486). 
 
This lack of correlation is somewhat surprising at face value, yet is understandable given the urban 
development of Southampton, with relatively affluent suburbs being fringed by major roads, such as 
the M3, M27, and M271. Also, since distance from Mayfield Park is also factored into our indicator, 
areas with relatively poor housing, such as Woolston, possibly benefit from their geographical 
location i.e. being relatively close to a ‘quiet area’. However, the highly significant negative 
correlations the accessibility indiactor with deprivation in its broad sense and health deprivation, 
suggest that there is some concern that those who are most deprived socially experience greater 
levels of noise. 
 
 
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The authors wish to acknowledge Stephen Parkinson from DEFRA for providing the noise exposure 
data. 
 
 
7 REFERENCES 
1. E. Ohrstrom et al., ‘Effects of road traffic noise and benefit of access to quietness’, J. Sound 
& Vib. 295 40-59. (2006). 
2. B.M. Shields and J.E. Dockrell, ‘The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the 
academic attainments of primary school children’, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(1) 133-143. 
(January 2006). 
3. Research into Quiet Areas. Recommendations for identification. DEFRA. (September 
2006). 
4. M. Noble et al. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007, Department for Communities and 
Local Government. (March 2008). 
5. A Study of the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation for the Hampshire County Council Area. 
Hampshire County Council (2008). 
 
 
 


A Study of the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation for the Hampshire County Council Area. Hampshire County Council

Effects of road traffic noise and benefit of access to quietness’,

Research into Quiet Areas. Recommendations for identification.

The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children’,

The English Indices of Deprivation

Social Deprivation and Accessibility to Quiet Areas in Southampton

http://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/2413/1/Ghent.2010.pdf

Social Deprivation and Accessibility to Quiet Areas in Southampton

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Solent Electronic Archive