Factors Influencing Residents’ Attitudes toward New Childcare Centers and Their Evaluation of the Surrounding Sound Environment

Abstract

Objective:

This study aims to investigate residents’ perceptions of sounds from childcare centers as environmental noise and to examine the relationship between these perceptions and social tolerance.

Materials and Methods:

Three urban areas in Tokyo, distinguished by their presence or absence of arterial roads and childcare centers, were selected as case studies. The study combined objective field measurements and a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was extended beyond those used in previous studies to include variables related to social capital, such as levels of social engagement and the strength of community ties, to investigate their influence on residents’ tolerance of noise from childcare centers.

Results:

Satisfaction with the sound environment was strongly correlated with equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure levels (L_Aeq,10min) (r = −0.78, P < 0.016), whereas the perception of childcare center sounds showed no significant association. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis (sites C–H and T1–T3) revealed noise sensitivity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.530, P < 0.001), willingness to participate in open events (OR = 3.851, P < 0.001), gender (OR = 2.176, P = 0.002), and ownership (OR = 0.332, P = 0.008) as significant predictors of opposition to new childcare centers. In the refined model for sites T1–T3 incorporating social capital variables, degree of trust was also significant (OR = 0.805, P = 0.005), with higher trust associated with lower levels of opposition.

Conclusion:

Residents’ perceptions of sounds from childcare centers were not significantly related to their satisfaction with the sound environment. Residents’ attitudes toward childcare centers reflect physical factors such as ambient noise as well as social factors such as interpersonal trust. Centers can minimize negatively perceived sounds and encourage community interaction to promote acceptance and coexistence.

KEY MESSAGES

• (1)This study explores residents’ perceptions of sounds from childcare centers as environmental noise and their relationship with social capital.
• (2)Residents with high noise sensitivity were more opposed to new childcare centers, whereas stronger social trust reduced opposition.
• (3)These findings underscore the influence of both acoustic and social factors on the acceptance of childcare centers, emphasizing the importance of fostering community interaction to enhance social tolerance of environmental sounds.

Introduction

Research on noise problems has been conducted from various perspectives. Some studies have used noise maps to predict the physical effects.[1,2,3,4] Noise maps have also been used to predict the human impacts of noise.[5,6,7] In addition, dose–response relationships have been established.[8,9,10,11] The effects of noise on the human body have been investigated using epidemiological methods.[12,13,14,15] Medical methods have also been used to examine these effects.[16,17] These prior studies have contributed to the development of noise guidelines and countermeasure policies, as well as the promotion of urban planning aimed at environmental conservation. However, despite these efforts, many noise problems remain unresolved. A recent analysis of noise complaints in Japan indicates that, although complaints regarding construction and industrial noise remain high, those concerning neighborhood noise, including that associated with everyday life, have increased significantly.[18] This suggests that existing approaches are insufficient to address noise problems in daily life, and that further investigation focused specifically on neighborhood noise is necessary. Such neighborhood noise issues also include problems related to noise from childcare centers.

The noise issues surrounding childcare centers in Japan have complex underlying causes. To understand these issues, first, the structure of the Early Childhood Education and Care system must be understood, as these systems vary significantly among countries.[19,20] In international comparisons, Japan is recognized for its high level of service provision for children aged 3–5. However, the availability of services for children aged 0–2 remains insufficient relative to demand.[21] Consequently, despite a substantial need for childcare services, many children in Japan are unable to access such centers.[22,23] In 2017, the number of children on waiting lists—those unable to enroll in childcare centers—exceeded 26,000, underscoring a pressing social issue.[24]

The Japanese government has initiated various measures in response to this challenge, including the establishment of childcare centers, deregulation, and efforts to increase the workforce of qualified childcare staff.[25] Although expanding childcare infrastructure is a national priority, some local governments have faced resistance to the construction of new childcare centers. Community complaints regarding noise from children have led to the cancellation of planned childcare centers in several instances.[26] In one case, residents living adjacent to a childcare center described the sounds generated from the center as noise and filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to restrict the noise.[27] This example demonstrates that childcare centers can be perceived as undesirable not only during the planning phases but also following their establishment, as ongoing conflicts with neighboring residents may increase.

These instances reflect the classic “Not in My Back Yard” phenomenon, in which residents recognize the societal importance of certain facilities yet oppose their proximity to their homes. This issue is not unique to Japan; for example, in Vancouver in 2023, a proposed expansion of a childcare center was rejected following neighborhood opposition, primarily based on concerns regarding potential noise disturbances.[28]

In Australia, the Association of Australasian Acoustical Consultants has established acoustic guidelines for childcare centers, with the objective of promoting harmonious coexistence with local communities.[29] These cases prompt a broader inquiry: why do essential social services, such as childcare centers, often face resistance from local communities, and which strategies can be implemented to foster harmonious coexistence?

To explore the underlying causes of local opposition, this study seeks to elucidate the backgrounds and motivations of individuals who object to the establishment of new childcare centers. Prior studies, including those conducted by Hashimoto et al., surveyed residents in the Tokyo Metropolitan Region to gauge their perceptions toward childcare centers and the associated sounds.[30] The findings indicated that a primary reason for opposition is the concern over changes in the local sound environment.

Furthermore, Hashimoto et al. investigated the acoustic characteristics of sounds generated by childcare centers. For instance, they reported that when approximately 100 children were playing outdoors, the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (L _Aeq), measured 10 meter from the center of a group of children playing in the childcare center yard, exceeded 70 dB, with peak frequencies observed across the frequency range of 1–2 kHz.[31]

In a related study, Nishikawa surveyed school administrators and observed that those in urban areas were more sensitive to the impact of school-related sounds, such as student voices, on nearby neighborhoods than those in rural regions.[32] However, these studies failed to examine the actual noise generated by childcare centers or the perception of such noise by neighboring residents comprehensively.[30,31,32]

To address these gaps, this study first conducted a measurement survey to document the physical conditions of the sound environments at the target sites. Questionnaire surveys were then conducted to assess the perception by nearby residents of the sound environment.[33] We selected multiple regions based on the presence or absence of noise sources and childcare centers for comparison to analyze the variations in sound environments.[34] Furthermore, we selected areas with different land values, based on publicly available price indices, to account for potential socioeconomic influences.[35] Our findings revealed that regional characteristics, such as the presence or absence of noise sources or childcare centers, were not associated with residents’ approval or disapproval. Instead, individuals with higher noise sensitivity or those who were unwilling to participate in open events were more likely to oppose the establishment of new childcare centers. Moreover, opposition was more prevalent in areas with higher land values.

When public centers such as childcare centers are established in residential areas, various factors influence whether residents accept or oppose their construction. Previous studies on neighborhood noise have shown that residents’ responses to noise are affected not only by its acoustic characteristics but also by non-acoustic factors.[36,37] Benz et al. [36] reported that social factors such as relationships with neighbors and satisfaction with the neighborhood contribute to the annoyance caused by neighborhood noise. Legent[37] further argued that the problem of neighbor noise should not be regarded merely as an issue of environmental hygiene, but also as one concerning social cohesion, civic awareness, and education. Although previous research identified noise sensitivity and economic background as influential factors, no reports are available that examine the relationship among perceptions of the sound environment, the acceptability of facilities affecting the sound environment, and social cohesion or civic awareness.[35] Therefore, the present study introduced social capital as an additional factor, based on previous findings that a decline in social capital is associated with heightened intolerance and diminished acceptance of individuals from diverse backgrounds.[38] Specifically, the hypothesis that social capital is likely associated with residents’ intolerance toward the construction of public centers in residential areas was examined. It has been well established that urban residents are more sensitive to noise issues than those living in rural areas.[32] One possible explanation for this is the phenomenon of “auditory territoriality,” in which individuals perceive sounds intruding into their living space as an invasion.[39] This response is believed to represent an evolutionarily developed density-dependent control mechanism that may function more prominently in high-density urban environments. Therefore, the present study focused on Tokyo, which is a metropolitan area characterized by a high population density in which neighborhood noise problems are more likely to occur. In addition, we introduced new questionnaire items related to social capital, including aspects such as civic participation and connections with the local community. By adopting this approach, we aimed to elucidate the background factors associated with opposition to the establishment of new childcare centers. Our findings highlight the potential of a non-acoustic strategy as an alternative solution to address conflicts related to sounds from childcare centers in the community. Furthermore, we explored the possibility that residents’ involvement in local social networks may influence their perceptions of the surrounding environment, including its sound environment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Electro-Communications under the title “Elucidation of methods for preserving the acoustic environment inside and outside urban childcare facilities,” with Permit No. H23025. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.

Surveys in Residential Sites with and without a Childcare Center

Selection of Survey Sites

Previous studies had conducted surveys in the regional city of Fukuoka City, targeting areas with different characteristics, such as the presence or absence of childcare centers, and facilities that are generally perceived as noise sources, including major roads and railways. These studies also considered officially published land prices.[34,35] In the present study, metropolitan areas with different living environments in terms of population size, price level, and childcare needs were selected as new survey sites to reinforce the findings obtained from the regional city. The same criteria that guided the selection of study areas in earlier research were taken into account. Accordingly, Chofu City, which is a western suburb of Tokyo, was selected as the metropolitan study site. Three distinct areas within Chofu City were selected for the study: two residential neighborhoods, each containing a childcare center, and one residential area without a childcare center. Detailed descriptions of each survey area are provided in Table 1. Childcare centers are present at Sites T1 and T2, whereas Site T3 does not have a childcare center. In previous studies and the present work, areas without childcare centers were selected as control conditions for areas with such centers, as well as to understand how residents would feel if such centers were constructed in the future.[34,35] As part of the process of selecting these survey areas, we intentionally included residents with different conditions for auditory exposure to childcare center sounds and other environmental noises, including traffic noise. Specifically, the survey areas were designed to encompass residents who heard both types of sounds, those who heard only childcare center sounds, those who heard only other environmental noises, and those who heard neither. Site T1 is bordered by a road to the north, whereas Site T2 is bordered by roads to the east and south. In contrast, Site T3 is located adjacent to a river on its northern side. At Site T1, the area within which sounds from the childcare center could be heard was identified, and the number of dwellings within this area was recorded. Furthermore, a comparable area containing a similar number of residences, but in which sounds from the childcare center were not audible, was delineated outside this zone. Both areas were included within the boundaries of Site T1. Consequently, the survey area for Site T1 was set at an approximate radius of 100 m surrounding the childcare center. A similar methodology was employed to establish the survey area for Site T2. For Site T3, which lacked a childcare center, the survey area was set to be approximately equivalent in size to those of Sites T1 and T2.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the surveyed sites

	Survey date	Childcare center	Road or railway
Site T1	Nov. 2023	Included	Included
Site T2	Nov. 2023	Included	Included
Site T3	Nov. 2023	Not included	Not included

The survey sites of this study are shown, outlined by thick white lines in [Figure 1]. The number of enrolled children at the childcare centers was 90 for T1 and 100 for T2. Both centers operate from 7:00 to 18:00. Sites T1 and T2 are situated adjacent to arterial roads featuring two or three lanes in each direction, whereas Site T3 is neither adjacent to a major roadway nor does it host a childcare center, resulting in relatively fewer sources of environmental sound that could influence the local sound environment.

Figure 1.

Aerial view of Sites T1–T3.

Notes: The areas of the childcare centers are delineated by double lines at Sites T1 and T2. Base map: The base map utilized Seamless Photo (Latest), provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, and was processed by the authors. Figures were edited and assembled for the final layout using Microsoft PowerPoint for Microsoft 365 (Version 2510; Microsoft Corporation, USA).

Measurement Survey of the Sound Environment

A comprehensive measurement survey was conducted to assess the physical characteristics of the sound environments at the different locations. Measurement points were established at 50 m intervals at Sites T1, T2, and T3 (outlined by thick white lines in [Figure 1]. The selection of this setting was based on the necessity of establishing measurement points on public roads and conducting measurements at times that were as proximate as possible to grasp the sound environment of the entire survey area comprehensively. These measurement points are shown as black dots in [Figure 2]. The measurement points were placed at approximately the center of each 50 m² grid. During weekday daytime hours (11:00–15:00) from November 13–15, 2023, the A-weighted sound pressure levels (A-weighted SPL) were measured at 100-ms intervals for 10 minutes at each location using a sound level meter (NL-52, RION Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Measurements obtained near roads did not include data from peak traffic hours. Similarly, measurements obtained near childcare centers did not include data from the morning drop-off period. However, a previous study showed that the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure levels (L _Aeq,10min) were similar to the results of continuous measurements conducted from 8:00 to 20:00 (L _Aeq,12hours), including peak traffic hours; therefore, the present study adopted the same approach.[40] The weather during the measurement period was cloudy or clear. The mean air temperature and wind speed during the measurement periods were 14.4 °C and 2.0 m/s on November 13, 17.0 °C and 2.1 m/s on November 14, and 13.0 °C and 1.3 m/s on November 15, respectively. The sound level meter was placed 1.3 meter above the ground. Environmental sounds were recorded using the same equipment (16-bit resolution, 48 kHz sampling rate).

Figure 2.

Measurement results for Sites T1–T3.

Notes: The areas of the childcare centers are delineated by double lines at Sites T1 and T2, with the measurement points indicated by black dots. Base map: The base map utilized Seamless Photo (Latest), provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, and was processed by the authors. Figures were edited and assembled for the final layout using Microsoft PowerPoint for Microsoft 365 (Version 2510; Microsoft Corporation, USA).

[Figure 2] shows the L _Aeq,10min values for each measurement point at Sites T1, T2, and T3, presented as color maps. Relatively high L _Aeq,10min values were observed at measurement points near roads at Sites T1 and T2. The L _Aeq,10min values at measurement points near the childcare centers showed considerable variation (approximately 45–65 dB). The L _Aeq,10min values were generally low at Site T3. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of L _Aeq,10min were calculated for all measurement points in each survey area, yielding the following values: T1: 57.1 ± 12.8 dB, T2: 58.9 ± 12.5 dB, and T3: 48.2 ± 10.3 dB.

In Japan, the Ministry of the Environment has established environmental quality standards under the Basic Environment Law. For residential areas such as those examined in this study, the standard is set at an equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (L _Aeq) of 55 dB or less during the daytime (6:00–22:00).[41] It should be noted that the measurement results could not be directly compared with L _Aeq of the standard values established under the Basic Environment Law, as the measurement times for L _Aeq differ.

Survey of Residents’ Attitudes toward a Sound Environment and Childcare Centers

Outline of the Survey Form

The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies to assess residents’ attitudes toward childcare centers and sound environments.[34,35] The details of each question are listed in 23. This survey form was developed based on items that were carefully reviewed and recommended by the Research Committee of the Acoustical Society of Japan.[42] Questions regarding childcare centers, particularly attitudes toward the establishment of new centers, were constructed using a five-point categorical scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), based on Weinstein’s noise sensitivity scale and the questionnaire scale used by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.[43,44] The questionnaire covered topics such as personal characteristics, living conditions, environmental status, and participants’ perspectives on childcare centers. In addition, participants residing near a childcare center were asked about sounds emanating from the center and their perceptions of these sounds. A shortened version of Weinstein’s noise sensitivity scale was incorporated to evaluate participants’ sensitivity to noise.[45] The noise sensitivity scale has been used consistently throughout our series of studies, and its scoring procedures followed those of previous research.[43] Recognizing the potential link between residents’ approval or disapproval of new childcare center construction and their level of social participation and community engagement, new questions addressing social capital were added to the survey. The social capital questions were formulated based on the framework in previous research.[46] Specifically, the survey inquired about general levels of trust; the degree of association with neighbors, friends, relatives, work colleagues; and the status and frequency of participation in various community activity groups. Residents who spent the majority of their time at home were asked to complete the questionnaires.

Table 2.

Questionnaire items and response scales for personal attributes, living environment, living circumstances, details about childcare centers, and types of sounds heard from childcare centers

Contents of the questionnaire			Response items
Personal attributes	Gender		1: Male, 2: Female, 3: No answer
	Age		1: Under 30 years, 2: 30–39 years, 3: 40–49 years, 4: 50–59 years, 5: 60–69 years, 6: 70 years and over
	Occupation		1: Independent business, 2: Salaried employee, 3: Self-employed professional, 4: Housekeeper, 5: Part-timer, 6: Student, 7: Unemployed
	Type of residence		1: Detached house, 2: Reinforced concrete apartment, 3: Wooden apartment, 4: Other
	Ownership		1: Owner-occupied house, 2: Rented house
	Floor number you live on		1: First floor, 2: Second floor, 3: Third floor, 4: Fourth floor, 5: Fifth floor, 6: Sixth floor, 7: Seventh floor and above
	Years of residence		1: Less than 1 year, 2: 1 to less than 5 years, 3: 5 to less than 10 years, 4: 10 to less than 20 years, 5: 20 years or more
	Household size		1: One person, 2: Two persons, 3: Three persons, 4: Four persons 5: Five persons or more
Living environment	Satisfaction with sound environment		1: Very dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 3: Neither, 4: Satisfied, 5: Very satisfied
Living circumstances	Frequency of staying at home during the day on weekdays		1: Daily, 2: Several times a week, 3: Several times a month, 4: Almost never
	Frequency of day–night reversal on weekdays		1: Daily, 2: Several times a week, 3: Several times a month, 4: Almost never
	Noise sensitivity	I do not pay much attention to people who sometimes turn the TV or audio system to a high volume	1: Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Somewhat disagree, 4: Somewhat agree, 5: Agree, 6: Strongly agree
		I wake up quickly with noise
		I am concerned that my neighbors are noisy
		Most noises quickly go unnoticed by me
		Sometimes I am annoyed by noise
		Even my favorite music gets in the way when I am trying to concentrate
		I am restless in noisy places
		I can concentrate regardless of my surroundings
		I get annoyed when people make noise while I sleep or work
		I am sensitive to sound
Details about childcare centers	Opinion about the establishment of new childcare centers		1: Strongly agree, 2: Agree, 3: Neither agree nor disagree, 4: Disagree, 5: Strongly disagree
	Reason		Free description
	Recognition of open events at childcare centers		1: Yes, 2: No
	Experience participating in open events at childcare centers
	Willingness to participate in open events at childcare centers
Types of sounds heard from childcare　centers	Baby crying, children’s conversation and playing sounds, children’s singing, children’s crying and screaming, childcare center teacher’s voice, childcare center teacher’s singing, parent’s voice, voices of parents warning their children, musical instrument sounds, music playing sounds, voice using public address system, whistle, Chime, Kindergarten bus, summer festival, athletic meet, recital, etc.　※ answer for each item		1: Hear / Do not hear2: Impression of the sound(Favorable / Neutral / Annoyance)

Table 3.

Questionnaire items and response scales for social capital

Contents of the questionnaire			Response items
Social capital	Degree of trust	Most people can be trusted	1: Agree, 2: Neither agree nor disagree, 3: Disagree
		People that we encounter while traveling or in unfamiliar places can be trusted
		Helping my neighbors will enable them to assist me when I am in need
		Helping my relatives will enable them to support me when I am in need
		Helping my colleagues at work will result in their support when I am in need
	Acquaintance and interactionwith neighbors	Degree	1: We regularly support each other in daily life, such as giving advice or lending and borrowing household items. 2: We occasionally engage in casual conversations. 3: We exchange greetings only. 4: We rarely interact at all, 5: We have no interaction whatsoever
		Number of individuals	1: I know and interact with many neighbors (approximately 20 or more people), 2: I know and interact with a moderate number of neighbors (approximately 5–19 people), 3: I know and interact with only a few neighbors (approximately 4 or fewer people), 4: I do not even know who my next-door neighbors are
	Frequency ofsocial engagement	Social interaction with friends and acquaintances out of school or the workplace	1: Almost daily / several times a week, 2: Approximately once a week / a few times a month, 3: Approximately once a month / a few times a year, 4: Approximately once a year / once every few years, 5: Never, or no such person exists
		Social interaction with family relatives
		Social interaction with coworkers out of work
	Level of participation in community activities	Community-based activities	1: I do not participate in this activity, 2: Several times a year, 3: Approximately once a month, 4: 2–3 days a month, 5: Approximately once a week, 6: 2–3 days a week, 7: 4 or more days a week
		Sports, hobbies, and recreational activities
		Volunteer work, nonprofit, and civic activities
		Other organizational activities

Distribution of the Questionnaire Survey

In August 2023, questionnaires were distributed by placing them in residents’ mailboxes. Completed surveys were then returned by mail to The University of Electro-Communications. At Site T1, 667 questionnaires were distributed, and responses were obtained from 78 respondents (response rate: 11.7%). At Site T2, 459 questionnaires were distributed, with 69 responses received (response rate: 15.0%). At Site T3, 637 questionnaires were distributed, resulting in 151 responses, and the highest response rate among the three sites at 23.7%.

Statistical Methods

Satisfaction with the surrounding sound environment was measured using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied. The relationships between L _Aeq,10min and the mean satisfaction score were examined using Pearson’s correlation analysis. The distributions of satisfaction levels were assessed using the chi-square test to compare the satisfaction levels of respondents who reported hearing sounds from childcare centers and those who did not.

Logistic regression analyses were conducted using two datasets to examine factors associated with residents’ attitudes toward the establishment of new childcare centers. The responses were quantified as described below, and the analyses were conducted using the same questions employed in both the previous and present surveys. Responses to the question on attitudes toward the establishment of new childcare centers were originally collected on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree) and were subsequently dichotomized for the logistic regression analysis. The “disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses (i.e., categories 4 and 5) were coded as 1 (opposition), and all other responses were coded as 0. On this basis, the dependent variable was defined as the probability of responding with opposition (coded as 1). One dataset combined the present survey sites (T1–T3) with the previous survey sites (C–H), and the other consisted only of the present survey sites (T1–T3). In the regression analysis using the combined dataset, the independent variables were defined as all items listed in 2 except for approval or disapproval of the new facility. When the present dataset was integrated with the previous survey data, the occupation and floor number of residence variables were excluded from the set of independent variables, because corresponding data were not available for all survey sites. The independent variables included survey items common to both studies, the presence or absence of childcare centers in each site, and the L _Aeq,10min values measured in the field. Sites C, D, G, T1, and T2 were classified as having childcare centers, whereas Sites E, F, H, and T3 were classified as sites where childcare centers were absent. The average L _Aeq,10min values for each site were as follows: C, 52.1 dB; D, 58.8 dB; E, 51.8 dB; F, 63.9 dB; G, 58.8 dB; H, 54.2 dB; T1, 57.1 dB; T2, 58.9 dB; and T3, 48.2 dB. Official land price, which was included as an independent variable in the previous study, was excluded from the present analysis because corresponding data were not available for Sites T1, T2, and T3.[35]

In this study, four dimensions of social capital were assessed using the questionnaire items summarized in 3. The responses to each item were scored and aggregated to derive composite scores corresponding to each dimension. A higher total score indicated a higher degree of trust in others, more frequent acquaintance and interaction with neighbors, and higher levels of social engagement. The independent variables for the regression analysis using only the present survey areas (T1–T3) included the items listed in 2, including occupation and floor number of residence, as well as the aggregate social capital scores.

Prior to estimating the models, multicollinearity among the explanatory variables was assessed. In the combined dataset (C–H and T1–T3), the correlation between age and years of residence was 0.644. Therefore, age was excluded from the explanatory variables. After re-estimating the model without age, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was successfully reduced to 1.241. After removing this variable, a mixed-effects logistic regression model was applied, incorporating the site as a random intercept to account for area-specific variability.

The multicollinearity diagnostics for the analysis limited to the present survey sites (T1–T3) revealed strong correlations between the presence of a childcare center and L _Aeq,10min (ρ = −0.95) and between age and years of residence (ρ = 0.62). Consequently, L _Aeq,10min and age were both excluded from the set of independent variables. Following these exclusions, the VIF values for the remaining variables were confirmed to be within an appropriate range (1.084–1.619). Cronbach’s alpha was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the four social capital dimensions. The values for frequency of social engagement (α = 0.38) and level of participation in community activities (α = 0.41) indicated insufficient reliability. Therefore, these variables were removed from the analysis. The remaining social capital variables, namely degree of trust (α = 0.79) and acquaintance/interaction with neighbors (α = 0.82), were retained.

As the initial logistic regression model for the T1–T3 dataset had a low events-per-variable value, indicating a high risk of overfitting, a stepwise variable selection procedure was used to create a more parsimonious and stable model. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all independent variables, and the statistical significance was set to P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.5.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

Response Summary

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are listed in Table 4. In terms of gender distribution, over 60% of the respondents at Sites T1 and T3 were female, whereas the percentages of male and female respondents at Site T2 were equal. Although many responses were observed among individuals in their 60s and those aged 70 and above, all age groups were represented in the sample. Notably, Site T1 exhibited a relatively high percentage of respondents under the age of 30, indicating greater engagement from younger individuals at this location. Salaried workers constituted the largest percentage of respondents across all surveyed sites, followed by unemployed workers. In contrast, the percentages of students and independent business individuals at Site T1 were marginally higher than those at the other sites. Site T2 had a relatively high proportion of unemployed respondents, marginally surpassing that of salaried workers. The percentage of full-time housekeepers at Site T3 was marginally higher than those in the other regions. With respect to housing type, apartment residents represented the majority at Sites T1 and T3, followed by residents of detached houses. Conversely, over 70% of respondents resided in detached houses at Site T2, highlighting a distinct residential pattern compared with the other sites. Housing tenure was evenly divided at Site T1, with approximately half of the respondents living in owner-occupied houses and the other half living in rented houses. In contrast, the proportion of respondents living in owner-occupied houses was significantly higher at Sites T2 and T3, in which over 80% lived in owner-occupied houses. In terms of the floor number of residence, at Sites T1 and T3, where apartment living was common, respondents reported residing on floors ranging from the first to the seventh. Conversely, at Site T2, half of the respondents resided on the second floor. The most frequently reported length of residence across all sites was 20 years or more, However, Site T1 had a higher proportion of newer residents, whereas Sites T2 and T3 were characterized by longer-term occupancy. Different trends were observed for household size across the sites. At Site T1, single-person households accounted for approximately half of all respondents. Site T2 exhibited a balanced distribution, with households of one to four members each representing approximately 20% of the sample, reflecting a diverse range of household sizes. Household structures varied at Site T3; however, two-person households were the most prevalent, accounting for approximately 40% of respondents.

Table 4.

Demographic characteristics of the respondents (%)

		Site T1	Site T2	Site T3
Gender	Male	38.5	49.3	35.6
	Female	61.5	49.3	62.4
	No answer	0.0	1.4	2.0
Age	Under 30 years old	20.5	5.8	2.7
	30–39 years	14.1	10.1	8.7
	40–49 years	16.7	21.7	14.7
	50–59 years	9.0	11.6	25.3
	60–69 years	20.5	18.8	26.0
	70 years and over	19.2	31.9	22.7
Occupation	Independent business	11.7	4.3	5.3
	Salaried employee	45.3	30.4	34.7
	Self-employed professional	1.3	1.4	4.0
	Housekeeper	6.5	7.2	18.7
	Part-timer	10.4	15.9	17.3
	Student	7.8	2.9	0.7
	Unemployed	16.9	37.7	19.3
Type of residence	Detached house	28.2	72.5	19.3
	Reinforced concrete apartment	56.4	14.5	77.3
	Wooden apartment	15.4	13.0	3.3
	Other	0.0	0.0	0.0
Ownership	Owner-occupied house	50.0	84.1	87.3
	Rented house	50.0	15.9	12.7
Floor number you live on	First floor	16.1	22.2	13.2
	Second floor	28.6	50.0	11.6
	Third floor	17.9	16.7	22.3
	Fourth floor	7.1	5.6	14.9
	Fifth floor	7.1	5.6	11.6
	Sixth floor	8.9	0.0	9.1
	Seventh floor and above	14.3	0.0	17.4
Years of residence	Less than 1 year	15.6	7.4	4.7
	1 to less than 5 years	28.6	19.1	8.7
	5 to less than 10 years	14.3	7.4	22.0
	10 to less than 20 years	7.8	25.0	25.3
	20 years or more	33.8	41.2	39.3
Household size	One person	49.4	23.2	18.7
	Two persons	23.4	26.1	38.0
	Three persons	10.4	20.3	24.7
	Four persons	9.1	23.2	16.0
	Over five persons	7.8	7.2	2.7

Compared with our previous studies at Sites C–H, the proportion of female respondents exceeded that of male respondents in all areas, accounting for approximately 60–80% of respondents. Site E was the only area in which the gender distribution was fairly equal. In terms of length of residence, a consistently high proportion of respondents had lived in their respective areas for 5 years or more across Sites C–H.[34,35] In light of these similarities and the fact that the personal attributes of the respondents in this study do not differ substantially from those reported in previous studies, the datasets were combined for analysis.

Summary of the Survey Results for Satisfaction with the Sound Environment

The aggregated results of the questions regarding respondents’ satisfaction with the sound environment surrounding their residences are listed in Table 5. The proportion of respondents who reported being “very satisfied” or “satisfied” exceeded that of respondents who were “very dissatisfied” or “dissatisfied” across all three survey areas. Specifically, 47.5% of respondents at Site T1, 68.1% at Site T2, and 79.3% at Site T3 indicated that they were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied.”

Table 5.

Response rates of the degree of satisfaction with the sound environment (%)

	Site C	Site D	Site E	Site F	Site G	Site H	Site T1	Site T2	Site T3
Very dissatisfied	1.4	2.3	1.7	10.2	0.9	0.8	3.8	2.9	1.3
Dissatisfied	4.8	17.5	13.8	33.0	12.0	11.3	20.5	15.9	8.7
Neither	10.3	19.8	11.2	19.3	14.5	20.4	28.2	13.0	10.7
Satisfied	44.1	42.4	44.8	29.5	41.9	43.8	30.8	47.8	50.0
Very satisfied	39.3	18.0	28.4	8.0	30.8	23.8	16.7	20.3	29.3

Table 5 also presents the results for Sites C–H from previous studies.[34,35] Satisfaction with the sound environment was relatively high across most sites, with over half of respondents reporting satisfaction. However, at Site F, the proportion of respondents who reported dissatisfaction exceeded that of respondents who reported satisfaction.

ANALYSIS

Satisfaction with the Sound Environment

Relationship between L_Aeq,10min and Satisfaction with the Sound Environment

In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the surrounding sound environment using a 5-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied.” The combined percentage of respondents who reported being either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” was 47.5% for Site T1, 68.1% for Site T2, and 79.3% for Site T3 [Table 5].

The relationship between the satisfaction with the sound environment and results of the sound environment measurement survey is shown in [Figure 3]. Residents’ satisfaction levels differed at sites D, G, and T2 despite being exposed to similar L _Aeq,10min values. In contrast, the satisfaction levels were similar at Sites E, H, and G, even though the L _Aeq,10min values differed. Such relationships may be attributed to factors such as using the average values of responses from residents living under different sound environments within the same site or consolidating noise level values with a wide range into representative values. Regional characteristics such as land prices may also be relevant. However, when the results from the survey sites in the present study were combined with those from previous studies, the mean satisfaction score for the sound environment at the survey sites was found to be significantly correlated with L _Aeq,10min (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = −0.78, P < 0.016).[34,35] The overall trend indicated by the negative correlation coefficient suggests that satisfaction with the sound environment decreases as L _Aeq,10min increases.

Figure 3.

Relationship between L _Aeq,10min and satisfaction with the sound environment for the present and previous survey sites (Sites C–H).[34,35]

Relationship between Respondents’ Perception of Sounds from Childcare Centers and Satisfaction with the Sound Environment

The effects of residents’ perception of sounds from childcare centers on their subjective satisfaction with the sound environment were examined at Sites T1 and T2. The respondents at both sites were divided into two groups: those who reported hearing sounds from childcare centers near their homes and those who did not. Subsequently, their responses regarding satisfaction with the sound environment were compared. Among the respondents at Sites T1 and T2, 56 (38.9%) individuals reported perceiving sounds from the childcare center, whereas 88 (61.1%) individuals indicated that they did not hear such sounds. The response rates for each category of satisfaction with respect to the surrounding sound environment for the two groups are presented in [Figure 4]. In the group of “respondents who hear,” 16.1% answered “very satisfied,” 41.1% answered “satisfied,” 26.8% answered “neither,” 17.9% answered “dissatisfied,” and 0.0% answered “very dissatisfied.” In the group of “respondents who do not hear,” 20.5% answered “very satisfied,” 38.6% answered “satisfied,” 15.9% answered “neither,” 19.3% answered “dissatisfied,” and 5.7% answered “very dissatisfied.” More than half of the respondents in both groups reported being satisfied with the sound environment. This proportion accounted for 57.1% of the respondents who reported hearing sounds from the childcare center and 59.1% of those who did not. Although the distribution of satisfaction levels differed slightly between respondents who heard and those who did not hear, the chi-square test indicated that these differences were not statistically significant (χ ² = 5.601, df = 4, P = 0.231). This finding suggests that the presence or absence of sounds from childcare centers does not significantly affect respondents’ satisfaction with the sound environment. These results are similar to those of a previous study and further support their findings.[35]

Figure 4.

Relationship between sound perception of sounds from childcare centers and satisfaction with the sound environment.

Nineteen (24.3%) respondents at Site T1 reported dissatisfaction with the sound environment. Of these, eight stated that they could hear sounds from the childcare center but were not bothered by them. The primary sources of annoyance among those who were dissatisfied were traffic noise and noise from the upper floors, with no respondents citing sounds from the childcare center. One respondent reported being disturbed by sounds from the childcare center, yet still evaluated the overall sound environment as satisfactory. This respondent described the disturbing sounds as children talking and playing, crying and screaming, and the sounds of musical instruments. In contrast, 13 (18.8%) respondents at Site T2 reported dissatisfaction with the sound environment. Of these, two respondents reported hearing sounds from the childcare center but were not bothered by the sounds. The main sources of annoyance were traffic noise, and no respondents indicated that they were annoyed by sounds from the childcare center. These results also suggest that sounds from the childcare center did not significantly influence residents’ satisfaction with the overall sound environment.

Respondent’s Attitudes toward the Establishment of New Childcare Centers

The respondents’ attitudes toward the establishment of childcare centers at the present survey sites were compared with those of previous studies (Sites C, D, and G with childcare centers; Sites E, F, and H without childcare centers).[34,35] The rates of responses for and against the establishment of new childcare centers at every site are shown in [Figure 5]. At Site T1, 18.2% of respondents answered “strongly agree,” 29.9% answered “agree,” 48.1% answered “neither agree nor disagree,” 3.9% answered “disagree,” and none answered “strongly disagree” (0.0%). The results at Site T2 were 18.8%, 29.0%, 42.0%, 7.2%, and 2.9%, respectively. The results at Site T3 were 7.3%, 28.7%, 50.7%, 10.7%, and 2.7%. At Sites T1 and T2, approximately half of the respondents expressed a positive response (sum of “strongly agree” and “agree”: 48.1% at Site T1 and 47.8% at Site T2). Conversely, negative responses (sum of “strongly disagree” and “disagree”) amounted to 3.9% at Site T1 and 10.1% at Site T2. Site T3 exhibited a lower rate of positive responses (36.0%) and a higher rate of negative responses (13.4%). Notably, the response pattern at T3 closely resembled those observed at Site G (with a childcare center) and Site H (without a childcare center) in the previous study. This similarity suggests that respondents’ attitudes toward the establishment of new childcare centers were not influenced by the presence or absence of such centers near their homes.

Figure 5.

Respondents’ attitudes toward the establishment of new childcare centers for the present and previous survey sites (Sites C–H).[34,35]

To examine the differences across survey sites, scores were assigned to the following response categories: “strongly agree” = 1 → “strongly disagree” = 5. A comparison of the mean scores revealed that Site T3 exhibited a slightly higher average than Site T1, indicating a somewhat more negative overall evaluation. Furthermore, multiple comparisons of the mean scores between survey sites using Holm’s method indicated a marginal difference between sites T1 and T3 (Site T1: 2.38, Site T3: 2.73, P = 0.059). In addition, respondents were invited to provide open-ended comments. The most frequently cited concerns included increased noise, particularly from children’s voices, and heightened traffic from both pedestrians and vehicles associated with drop-off and pick-up times.

Factors Influencing Residents’ Attitudes toward the Establishment of New Childcare Centers

Analysis Using Variables Common to Both the Present and Previous Studies

Table 6 shows the results of the mixed-effects logistic regression analysis performed on the combined dataset (1230 valid responses) from sites C–H and T1–T3. After addressing multicollinearity by removing age owing to its strong correlation with years of residence, the model revealed several significant predictors of opposition to the establishment of new childcare centers.

Table 6.

Result of mixed-effects logistic regression analysis using questionnaire results of the present and previous surveys (random intercept for site)

Independent variables	Regression coefficient	P		OR	95% CI for OR
Constant	−5.825	0.081		0.003	0.000–2.040
Presence or absence of a childcare center nearby	0.050	0.868		1.501	0.583–1.896
Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (dB)	−0.048	0.218		0.953	0.884–1.028
Gender	0.777	0.002	**	2.176	1.315–3.600
Type of residence	−0.258	0.330		0.773	0.460–1.297
Ownership	−1.104	0.008	**	0.332	0.147–0.748
Years of living at the residence	0.057	0.602		1.059	0.855–1.311
Number of household members	−0.037	0.745		0.964	0.770–1.205
Satisfaction with the surrounding sound environment	−0.230	0.043	*	0.794	0.636–0.993
Hearing situation of the sound generated by childcare centers	0.158	0.579		1.171	0.670–2.046
Frequency of staying at home during the day on weekdays	0.067	0.570		1.070	0.848–1.350
Frequency of day–night reversal on weekdays	0.351	0.332		1.421	0.699–2.889
Noise sensitivity	0.928	0.000	***	2.530	1.523–4.202
Recognition of open events at childcare centers	0.396	0.140		1.486	0.879–2.512
Experience participating in open events at childcare centers	0.167	0.652		1.182	0.572–2.442
Willingness to participate in open events at childcare centers	1.348	0.001	***	3.851	1.779–8.336
Random intercept variance (Site)	0.000	—		—	—

Notes: Significance levels: *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01, ***: P < 0.001.

Noise sensitivity was strongly associated with increased opposition (OR = 2.530, 95% CI: 1.523–4.202, P < 0.001). Gender also had a significant effect: female respondents were more likely than male respondents to oppose new childcare centers (OR = 2.176, 95% CI: 1.315–3.600, P = 0.002). Satisfaction with the surrounding sound environment was significantly and negatively associated with opposition (OR = 0.794, 95% CI: 0.636–0.993, P = 0.043), indicating that individuals who were less satisfied with their current sound environment were more likely to oppose new childcare centers. In addition, willingness to participate in open events at childcare centers was significantly related to attitudes; individuals who were less willing to participate showed higher levels of opposition (OR = 3.851, 95% CI: 1.779–8.336, P < 0.001).

Conversely, variables such as the presence or absence of a nearby childcare center, L _Aeq,10min, housing type, years of residence, household size, audibility of childcare center sounds, time spent at home, day–night activity patterns, recognition of open events at childcare centers, and experience participating in open events at childcare centers did not exhibit any significant associations.

Analysis Using Variables Including Social Capital of the Present Study

Logistic regression analysis was performed using 298 valid responses that were obtained from survey areas T1–T3. Table 7 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis with the refined set of variables for Sites T1–T3. After reducing the number of variables, the final model included ownership, degree of trust, and noise sensitivity, although the latter was not statistically significant.

Table 7.

Logistic regression results from the refined model following variable reduction addressing multicollinearity, reliability, and overfitting for the present survey sites

Independent variables	Regression coefficient	P		OR	95% CI for OR
Constant	1.520	0.324		4.572	0.223–93.91
Ownership	−2.230	0.031	*	0.108	0.014– 0.812
Noise sensitivity	0.684	0.109		1.983	0.858– 4.581
Degree of trust	−0.216	0.005	**	0.805	0.691– 0.938

Notes: Significance levels: *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01, ***: P < 0.001.

Ownership showed a significant negative association with opposition to the establishment of new childcare centers (OR = 0.108, 95% CI: 0.014–0.812, P = 0.031), indicating that homeowners were more likely than renters to oppose the construction of new facilities. Degree of trust was also a significant predictor (OR = 0.805, 95% CI: 0.691–0.938, P = 0.005), suggesting that individuals with higher levels of social trust were less likely to oppose the construction of new facilities.

However, noise sensitivity did not reach statistical significance in the refined model (OR = 1.983, 95% CI: 0.858–4.581, P = 0.109). Nevertheless, the direction of the association indicated that respondents with higher noise sensitivity tended to show greater resistance.

The constant term was not statistically significant (OR = 4.572, P = 0.324), and no other variables remained in the final model. These results highlight the importance of ownership and social trust as key factors influencing residents’ acceptance of new childcare centers in the surveyed areas.

DISCUSSION

Further insights were provided by a sound environment survey. At Sites T1 and T2, which are both situated along major roads, more areas were present with elevated L _Aeq,10min, compared with Site T3, which is not adjacent to any major roads. Notably, the L _Aeq,10min values tended to decrease toward the center of the residential areas, with a significant reduction in L _Aeq,10min observed directly beyond the roadside. At Site T3, which does not face a major road, more than half of the measurement points exhibited relatively low L _Aeq,10min levels (45–55 dB), indicating that this location was the quietest among the three sites.

Furthermore, a higher L _Aeq,10min was associated with lower satisfaction with the sound environment. However, no significant differences in satisfaction levels were observed between residents who reported hearing sounds from childcare centers and those who did not. This suggests that the effects of the sounds originating from childcare centers on residents’ satisfaction with their sound environments were minimal.

Logistic regression analyses were conducted using datasets from the previous and present surveys to further examine the factors influencing residents’ attitudes toward the establishment of new childcare centers. In the model that combined all survey sites (C–H and T1–T3), five variables showed significant associations: gender, ownership, satisfaction with the sound environment, noise sensitivity, and willingness to participate in open events. These results are almost consistent with those of previous research, thereby supporting the reliability of these variables as predictors. It is reasonable that satisfaction with the sound environment emerged as a significant factor because residents who are already dissatisfied with the current noise situation are likely to be more concerned that a new childcare center could exacerbate existing noise issues.

In contrast, when the analysis was limited to the newly surveyed sites (T1–T3) and adjusted for multicollinearity, variable reliability, and overfitting, the refined model revealed ownership and degree of trust as the key predictors. Homeowners were more likely than renters to oppose the establishment of new childcare centers, which suggests that those with long-term residential commitments may perceive new developments as potential disturbances to their established living environments. Moreover, respondents with higher levels of trust in others were less likely to oppose the centers, indicating that social trust may facilitate the acceptance of community facilities such as childcare centers.

Although noise sensitivity did not reach statistical significance in the refined model for T1–T3, the positive direction of the regression coefficient suggests that individuals with higher noise sensitivity tended to be more resistant. Although this relationship was not significant in the final model, it remains consistent with previous findings.

The results for trust indicated that respondents with higher levels of trust in others were less likely to oppose the establishment of new childcare centers. This suggests that residents who feel connected to and supported by their community tend to be more accepting of local childcare facilities. As noted by Putnam,[38] trust and cooperative norms foster openness and tolerance toward community initiatives.

Collectively, these findings highlight that attitudes toward the establishment of new childcare centers are shaped by physical environmental conditions, such as ambient noise levels as well as residents’ personal characteristics and social relationships within the community. In particular, social trust emerged as an important factor in promoting the acceptance of childcare centers, suggesting that strengthening community ties may help to facilitate the coexistence of residents and childcare facilities.

The locations where survey respondents lived did not perfectly match the noise measurement points. Therefore, responses regarding residents’ satisfaction with the sound environment could be fully correlated with physical sound measurements. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the results of this study.

Another limitation of the present study is the relatively low response rate across all three survey areas. Residents who were particularly interested in childcare centers or environmental issues may have been more inclined to participate. This raises concerns that the sample may not fully represent the broader population in each area. Such potential bias may have influenced the results. Although the dataset included both supportive and opposing opinions, thereby enabling meaningful analysis, future research should aim for higher response rates to verify the accuracy of these findings in more representative samples.

Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between the sound environment and residents’ attitudes toward the establishment of childcare centers in three areas of the Tokyo Metropolitan Region. Higher L _Aeq,10min values were associated with lower satisfaction with the surrounding sound environment. However, the perception of sounds from childcare centers was not significantly related to satisfaction.

Logistic regression analyses using the full dataset, which included data from a previous study, showed that opposition to new childcare centers was associated with gender, ownership, noise sensitivity, satisfaction with the sound environment, and willingness to participate in open events. In a refined model that focused on the present survey sites, ownership and trust were significant predictors; homeowners and respondents with lower interpersonal trust were more likely to oppose new centers. Noise sensitivity showed a similar trend but was not statistically significant in the refined model.

Overall, these findings suggest that attitudes toward childcare centers are influenced by physical factors such as ambient noise, as well as social factors, particularly interpersonal trust. Therefore, strengthening community ties and promoting engagement may help to facilitate greater acceptance of childcare centers. International comparative studies may further contextualize these results.

Availability of Data and Materials

The data from the survey questionnaire that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.K. and M.T.; methodology, H.K. and M.T.; software, H.K. and Y.K.; validation, H.K., Y.K., and M.T.; formal analysis, H.K. and Y.K.; investigation, H.K., Y.K., and M.T.; resources, M.T.; data curation, Y.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.K.; writing—review and editing, M.T.; visualization, Y.K.; supervision, M.T.; project administration, M.T.; funding acquisition, H.K. and M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Electro-Communications under the title “Elucidation of methods for preserving the acoustic environment inside and outside urban childcare facilities,” with Permit No. H23025. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by JSPS KAKENHI (GrantNos.JP20J10381 and JP23K12742).