Visibility and Natural Quiet in National Parks and Wilderness Areas

Abstract

For over a century, authorities have recognized cultural and psychological benefits of preserving national parks and wilderness areas. Yet, with increasesin visitation and mechanized travel, air and noise pollution are intruding moreand more into preserved natural areas. Psychological research shows that humans can detect very lowlevels of these pollutants in natural and laboratory settings, that air and noise pollution detract from the enjoyment of the visitor experience, and that people place a high value on naturally quiet, pollution-free settings. This article discusses how psychological research is essential for a more complete understanding of the value and the influence of both visibility and quiet surroundings with a focus on applied, field-based research in national parks and wilderness areas. The article concludes with recommendations for future directions in research in these areas and argues that implications of psychological research results should be addressed in the natural resource policy-making process.

Sonic environmental aesthetics and landscape research

“…For example, Benfield, Bell, Troup and Soderstrom (2010) used recordings of different anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sounds to understand how they affect people's aesthetic ratings of static scenes from five US national parks, concluding that anthropogenic 'noise' , including air and ground traffic but also human voices, 'decreased participant ratings of serenity' , which chimes with the results of similar experiments (for example Kariel, 1990;Mace, Bell, & Loomis, 1999;Mace, Bell, Loomis, & Haas, 2003;Pilcher, Newman, & Manning, 2009;Tarrant, Haas, & Manfredo, 1995). Such results form the basis of prevailing discussions within applied landscape research over how to best manage unwanted sounds, particularly in national parks and wilderness areas (see for example Dumyahn & Pijanowski, 2011;Lynch, Joyce, & Fristrup, 2011;Mace, Bell, & Loomis, 2004;Miller, 2008;Pepper, Nascarella, & Kendall, 2003). Noise abatement policies are now common across all levels of governance, from supranational institutions to cities, and tools such as noise exposure maps are one prevalent means of gathering data on where anti-noise interventions should take place (Wissmann, 2014).…”

No barrier at the boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for noise management in protected natural areas

“…Numerous surveys of park visitors and the American public confirm that a large proportion of the public regards opportunities to experience the sounds of nature as important reasons for establishing and visiting national parks (McDonald et al 1995, Haas & Wakefield 1998, Mace et al 1999, Mace et al 2004. Measures that provide park visitors with outstanding opportunities to experience natural acoustic environments will be protective for wildlife.…”

Motorcycling over the Ofenpass: perception of the Swiss National Park and the Ofenpass from the perspective of motorcyclists

“…Hence people's observations that motorcycles are louder mostly depend on human perception but also on the fact that some motorcyclists exceed 100 km/h, above which a motorcycle engine is louder than a car -man interference is being avoided as much as possible, unnatural sound is generally perceived as an unwanted intrusion. Hence the situation in many parts of SNP (many valleys are open to the road), and especially requirements of a recreation area's soundscape (Mace et al 2004;Miller 2008). While the measured noise can be attributed to both cars and motorcycles, the perceived noise is attributed much more to the latter.…”