Exploring sonic experiences in church spaces: a psycholinguistic analysis
In: The senses & society, Band 17, Heft 3, S. 343-358
ISSN: 1745-8927
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: The senses & society, Band 17, Heft 3, S. 343-358
ISSN: 1745-8927
In: Human factors: the journal of the Human Factors Society, Band 60, Heft 6, S. 844-854
ISSN: 1547-8181
Objectives: In this article, we seek to determine how sensitive road cyclists are to vertical vibration transmitted while riding a road bicycle and to propose metrics for the evaluation of dynamic comfort. Background: Road cyclists are exposed to random-type excitation due to road roughness. Vibration transmitted affects dynamic comfort. But how sensitive are cyclists to vibration level? What are the best metrics to measure the amount of vibration transmitted to cyclists? Previous studies used sinusoidal excitation with participants on rigid seats and measured acceleration. Methods: We use a psychophysical estimation of Just Noticeable Differences in Level (JNDL) for vertical vibration transmitted to cyclists on a road simulator. In Experiment 1, we estimate the JNDL for whole-body vibration using vertical excitation on both wheels simultaneously (20 male cyclists). In Experiment 2, we estimate the JNDL at two different points of contact by applying the same signal to only the hands or the buttocks (9 male cyclists). Results: The JNDLs are expressed in terms of acceleration and power transmitted to the cyclist. We compare the JNDLs expressed with these 2 metrics and measured at different points of contact. Conclusion: Using these two metrics and at all points of contact, vibration magnitude needs to be reduced by at least 15%, for the change to be detectable by road cyclists. Application: A road bicycle needs to transmit at least 15% less vibration for male cyclists to detect an improvement in dynamic comfort. Dynamic bicycle comfort can be measured in terms of a new metric: power transmitted to the cyclist.
In: Canadian public policy: Analyse de politiques, Band 48, Heft 1, S. 74-90
ISSN: 1911-9917
Le bruit environnemental – enjeu de santé publique et de qualité de vie – est encadré par différents paliers de gouvernement avec des prises en charge distinctes selon les États et régions du monde. Au Canada, le gouvernement fédéral, les provinces et les municipalités (et entités régionales et locales) se partagent la responsabilité du bruit provenant de différentes sources (transports, activités industrielles, activités récréatives, bruits de voisinage, etc.). La revue brossée ici à partir de politiques et de réglementations sur le bruit développées, depuis les années 1970, à tous ces paliers de gouvernement, laisse voir un portrait fragmentaire et inégal selon les provinces, ainsi qu'une multiplicité d'acteurs et de mesures qui exigeraient davantage d'intégration et d'harmonisation. L'étude prend appui sur une recension plus vaste à l'échelle internationale qui permet de situer le cas canadien et d'ouvrir sur une comparaison avec d'autres modèles. L'encadrement actuel, souvent centré sur des mesures réparatrices a posteriori, ne peut en lui-même résoudre tous les enjeux liés au bruit. Ce cadre d'action, qui repose principalement sur le contrôle des niveaux sonores, pourrait également être élargi et enrichi par des approches telles que (i) la prise en compte qualitative des diverses sensibilités des citoyens vis-à-vis du type de bruit rencontré et son contexte, et (ii) des outils de planification prenant pleinement en compte le bruit et plus largement l'environnement sonore en aménagement du territoire. Ainsi bonifié, l'encadrement du bruit serait en mesure de mieux répondre aux coûts sociaux et économiques engendrés par ce polluant environnemental au Canada et au souci de réduire les inégalités en matière d'exposition des populations au bruit.
Developing innovative noise policies that build on international best practices is difficult when policies around the world differ along many dimensions, ranging from different sources covered to different levels of governance involved. This is particularly critical in the context of road traffic, identified as one of the main culprits leading to noise-associated complaints and health issues. In this article, we document the wide range of specifications observed in road traffic policies and propose a methodology to compare noise limits across noise policies. First, we present the responsibilities of administrative governments according to the scope (e.g., emission vs. exposure). Second, we compare noise limits by scope and geographic areas by separating acoustic indicators (overall and event indicators). Third, we convert overall outdoor noise limits into a common basis using the method described by Brink and his associates (2018) and compare them with the World Health Organization (WHO)'s recommendations (2018). Finally, measurement protocols are also compared across outdoor noise policies. This paper shows that road noise is managed at several administrative levels using approaches that are either centralized or decentralized. We also observed disparities in the associated noise limits across geographic areas. The converted outdoor noise limits generally exceeded the WHO's recommendations (2018). Finally, this paper outlines how outdoor measurement protocols vary across geographic areas. However, similarities were identified between state and provincial noise policies within the same country.
BASE