Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2007, volume 34, pages 68 ^ 86

DOI:10.1068/b31162

Towards the evaluation, description, and creation of

soundscapes in urban open spaces

Mei Zhang, Jian Kang

School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, The Arts Tower, Floor 14, Western Bank,
Sheffield S10 2TN, England; e-mail: m.zhang@sheffield.ac.uk, j.kang@sheffield.ac.uk
Received 7 January 2005; in revised form 28 February 2006

Abstract. Soundscape is about relationships between the ear, human beings, sound environments, and
society. Soundscape research is interdisciplinary. On the basis of a series of case studies in Europe
and China and an intensive literature review, the soundscape description, evaluation, and creation in
urban open spaces are systematically examined, in terms of four basic elements: sound, space, people,
and environment. Factors affecting soundscape evaluation in urban open spaces, including acoustic ^
psychological ^ social characteristics of various sounds, acoustic effects of space boundaries and
elements, social ^ demographic characteristics of users, and general physical ^ environmental condi-
tions, are identified, and, consequently, a system for soundscape description is established. Potentials
of creating and designing soundscape in urban spaces are then discussed in terms of sound and space.

1 Introduction
Community noise, including sounds from road, rail, or air traffic; industry; construc-
tion; public work; and the neighbourhood; is often the main cause of environmental
distress in terms of the number of complaints received. A series of surveys in the
United Kingdom show that there is an increased number of noise-producing events
(Grimwood, 1993; Skinner and Grimwood, 2005). Considerable investigations regard-
ing noise propagation and reduction in urban areas have been carried out (Kang,
2006); various effects of community noise exposure have been studied (Fields et al,
1997; Shaw, 1996); a series of noise regulations has been set up (EU, 2002); and many
local authorities are actively making noise maps of their cities (Hinton and Bloomfield,
2000). However, recent research has shown that a reduction of sound level does not
necessarily lead to better acoustic comfort in urban areas (de Ruiter, 2004). In urban
open spaces, for example, when the sound pressure level (SPL) is below a certain value,
as high as 65 ^ 70 dBA, people's acoustic comfort evaluation is not related to the sound
level, whereas the type of sound sources, the characteristics of users, and other factors
play an important role (Ballas, 1993; Dubois, 2000; Gaver, 1993; Maffiolo et al, 1997;
Yang and Kang, 2005a).
The pioneering research in soundscape was carried out by Schafer in the 1960s
(Schafer, 1977). A musician and composer, Schafer's early soundscape work had always
been about relationships between the ear, human beings, sound environments, and
society. The world forum for acoustic ecology was founded in 1993, with members
who share a common concern with the state of the world soundscape as an ecolog-
ically balanced entity. Research in soundscape relates to many disciplines (Karlsson,
2000), including acoustics, aesthetics, anthropology, architecture, ecology, ethnology,
communication, design, human geography, information, landscapes, law, linguistics,
literature, media arts, medicine, musicology, noise-control engineering, philosophy,
pedagogics, psychology, political science, religious studies, sociology, technology,
and urban planning. Recording and listening to natural and human-made sounds is
an important aspect of soundscape study (Westerkamp, 2000). In 1975 Schafer led a
Corresponding author.
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 69

group on a European tour that included a research project that made detailed
investigations of the soundscapes of five villages, and recently, under the framework
of a European research project, the five villages were revisited to undertake comparative
studies (Jarviluoma, 2000). Soundscapes are of great importance for environmental
conservation (Truax, 1999). For example, in 1996 the Japan Environmental Agency
carried out a project called `one hundred soundscapes of Japan' (Fujimoto et al,
1998). Soundscapes have also been explored from the sociological viewpoint. The social
and cultural environment often shapes common rules of perception of sounds (Corbin,
1998; Htouris, 2001). In the field of literature, the cultural and literary significance of
acoustic imagination in intimate relationships between humans and the natural world
has been studied (Yuki, 2000). There have also been psycolinguistic and cognitive
approaches to soundscape research (Dubois, 2000; Guastavino and Cheminee, 2004;
Guastavino et al, 2005). Another important aspect relating to soundscape study is the
effect of the acoustic environment on health (Kihlman et al, 2001). Moreover, the
detrimental effects of the acoustic environment on human mental health have been
investigated (Lercher and Widmann, 2001), although it seems that the relationship
between them is still undetermined, and it is difficult to give a simple rule. Other works
relating to soundscapes include sound systems, musical instruments, software for
animation, and sonic sculptures.
To a certain degree, an urban ^ architectural space could be regarded as a `product'
and, consequently, the methodology developed in the field of sound quality is of great
relevancefor the soundscape reproduction in laboratory conditions, for example
(Guastavino and Katz, 2004; Guastavino et al, 2005). The term sound quality was
coined in the 1980s. In the very beginning the term expressed an understanding that
acoustic emissions had further characteristics than just a level. Corresponding to the
concept of product quality, sound quality was defined as the adequacy of a sound in
the context of a specific technical goal and/or task (Blauert and Jekosch, 1997). Sound
quality has three main aspects: stimulus ^ response compatibility, pleasantness of
sounds, and identifiability of sounds or sound sources (Guski, 1997; Zeitler and
Hellbru ck, 1999). The pleasantness aspect of sound design is commonly evaluated
by means of unidimensional rating scales, and identification aspect is evaluated by
means of decision times in recognition tasks and multidimensional scaling techniques
(Susini et al, 1999). Considerable work has been carried out in the evaluation of
various product sounds such as cars, construction machines, printers, and trains.
Psychoacoustic magnitudes, including loudness, sharpness, fluctuation strength, or
roughness (Fastl, 1997; Zwicker and Fastl, 1999) have been applied, which allow for
an instrumental prediction of attributes of sound perception, although instruments
are still far from simulating human sound perception and evaluating all of its facets
(Bodden, 1997).
Urban open spaces are important components in a city. Recent studies of such
spaces have shown that the acoustic environment plays an important role in overall
comfort (Raimbault et al, 2003; Zhang and Kang, 2004). Whilst the existing research
on the urban sound environment is focused on controlling unwanted sounds and on
residential areas, and the existing research on soundscapes is focused on rural areas,
consideration of the soundscapes in urban spaces has been rather limited.
To study and design a soundscape in urban open spaces, it is important to consider
various facets, including physical, social, cultural, psychological, and architectural
factors, in an integrated way, with negative and positive sounds taken into account.
In this paper, based on a series of our recent studies and an intensive literature review,
the three essential facets of soundscapes in urban open spaces, namely soundscape
description, evaluation, and creation, are systematically examined in terms of four
70 M Zhang, J Kang

basic elements: sound, space, people, and environment. The central aim of this paper
is to define the scope for the soundscape in urban open spaces and to establish a
framework.

2 Soundscape study in urban open spaces

Our studies of soundscape of urban open spaces included four aspects: questionnaire
survey, semantic differential analysis, field measurement, and computer simulation of
sound propagation.
The questionnaire surveys were carried out in nineteen urban open public spaces,
four in Sheffield, three in Beijing, and two in each of the following cities: Alimos,
Thessaloniki, Sesto San Giovanni, Cambridge, Kassel, and Fribourg. The case-study
sites represented a wide variationin terms of function, including residential squares,
cultural and tourism squares, railway station squares, and multifunctional squares; and in
terms of soundscape, with traffic noise as a common source, but a number of sites were
featured by their unique sound elements, such as water, music, church bells, dancing, and
construction. In total over 10 000 interviews were made, around 300 ^ 1000 on each site.
An identical questionnaire, translated into different languages in different countries,
was used. Interviewees were asked to evaluate the sound environment of the site and of
their home, and to classify various sounds as `favourite', `neither favourite nor annoying',
or `annoying'. In the squares in Sheffield and Beijing, more detailed questions were
included and a semistructured interview was also included which related to a preferred
relaxing sound environment. The questionnaire was not introduced as a soundscape
survey only, but as an enquiry relating to general environment conditions, including
the thermal, lighting, wind, humidity, and visual environment (Kang et al, 2004). Such
an integrative consideration of various factors was useful for avoiding any possibility of
bias in the acoustic aspect. The interviewees were the users, not passersby, of the
squares, and were selected randomly.
The semantic differential technique (Osgood et al, 1957) was used to identify the
main factors that characterise the soundscape. A number of soundscape walks were
organised with a total of about 500 university students in four typical urban open
spaces in Sheffield, and an evaluation of the soundscapes was carried out. Further
interviews were then performed with 491 subjects from the general public in two selected
spaces. Eighteen indices with a seven-point bipolar rating scale were used, to evaluate
the main individual sounds as well as the overall soundscape. Both the connotative
meanings of urban sounds, such as calming ^ agitating and interesting ^ boring, and the
denotative meanings, such as quiet ^ noisy and sharp ^ flat, were included.
A one-minute Leq , the equivalent continuous sound level, was measured for each
interview, either when the interviewee filled in the questionnaire silently, or immedi-
ately after the interview; correspondingly, statistical indices, including Leq , 90 , Leq , 50 ,
and Leq , 10 , were calculated on the basis of the measurements for all interviews.
Reverberation measurements were made in selected sites. The procedure was to burst
a balloon or to use a pistol to generate an impulse, and at the same time to record the
process of sound decay. Typical sounds were recorded and some psychoacoustic
indices were analysed, including loudness, sharpness, and roughness. As well as
acoustic measurement, a weather station was used to record various microclimate data.
Two computer models were developed for predicting sound fields of urban open
spaces (Kang, 2000; 2001; 2002; 2005)one based on the radiosity method, for
diffusely reflecting boundaries according to the Lambert cosine law, and the other
based on the image source method, for geometrically reflecting boundaries. They
were then applied in order to analyse basic characteristics of sound fields in urban
spaces, and to analyse the effects of architectural changes and urban design options,
 Soundscapes in urban open spaces 71

including the boundary reflection pattern, square geometry, boundary absorption, and
building arrangements.

3 Soundscape evaluation
The evaluation of the soundscape in open public spaces is rather complicated, involv-
ing interactions between various sound sources and between acoustic factors and other
factors, for example. This section examines the soundscape evaluation in terms of four
basic elements: sound, space, people, and interactions between acoustic and other
physical or environmental factors.
3.1 Sound
An initial step of the soundscape evaluation of an urban open space is to consider
individual sounds. Based on the field survey in Sheffield, figure 1 shows the classifica-
tion of a number of typical sounds in urban open spaces (Yang and Kang, 2005b). It
can be seen that people showed a very positive attitude towards the natural sounds.
More than 75% of the interviewees were favourable to the water sound and to birdsong.
For culturally approved sounds, such as church bells, music on the street, and bells and
music from a clock, people also showed relatively high levels of preference. For human
sounds such as surrounding speech, most people thought they were `neither favourite
nor annoying'. The most unpopular sounds were mechanical sounds, such as con-
struction sounds, music from cars, and vehicle sounds. Though the above sound
preferences were somewhat expected, it would be interesting to compare the music
from three different sourcesas can be seen in figure 1, the rate of `favourite' was 46%
for music on a street, 15% for music from stores, and 2% for music from cars, where
the differences were statistically significant ( p < 0:01).

Annoying

Neither favourite nor

annoying
100 Favourite

80
Percentage

60

40

20

0
er

s
Wat

bird

bells

t
stree

k
g of

cloc

unds
rch

eech
ores
ic on
terin

Chu

sing
from

ct so

ng
t
s

cars
s
Twit

outi
Mus

s
ing

s
o
om
Inse

Buse
usic

n cr

ction
ound

ng
's sh

om
ic fr

rs
or m

stria

arki
ic fr

r ca
stru
d ren
Mus
Surr

cle p
Pede

enge
Con
Mus
Bells

Chil

Vehi

Pass

Figure 1. Classification of typical sounds in urban open spaces, on the basis of the survey in
Sheffield.
72 M Zhang, J Kang

Similarly, a list of sounds in surroundings was given on the basis of a survey in

Japan (Tamura, 1998). On the top of the list was the twittering of birds, murmurs of
water, insects and frogs, waves, and wind chimes 45 ^ 75% of the subjects found these
sounds favourable and 25 ^ 65% found them neither favourable nor annoying. The
bottom five sounds were motorbikes, idling engines, construction, advertising cars,
and karaoke restaurants35 ^ 55% of the subjects found these sounds annoying and
45 ^ 65% found them neither favourable nor annoying.
Schafer (1977) defined the sounds as keynotes, foreground sounds, and soundmarks.
Keynotes are in analogy to music, in which a keynote identifies the fundamental tonality
of a composition, around which the music modulates. Foreground sounds, also termed
`sound signals', are intended to attract attention. Sounds that are particularly regarded
by a community and its visitors are called `soundmarks', in analogy to landmarks.
Natural examples of the latter include geysers, waterfalls, and wind traps, and cultural
examples include distinctive bells and the sounds of traditional activities (Smith, 2000).
Although traffic has become a common feature of many cities, special soundmarks still
exist. For example, a soundscape survey with a number of foreign residents in Fukuoka
showed that there were considerable differences between the sounds they heard in
Japan and in their home countries (Iwamiya and Yanagihara, 1998).
In a similar way it is also useful to identify two kinds of sound relating to different
ways of processing in listening: a `descriptive listening' which aims at the identification
of acoustic sources or events and a `holistic hearing' which processes the soundscape
as a whole without semantic processing, or, in other words, `ambient noises of the city'
or `background noise', in which no specific event can be isolated (Guastavino and
Cheminee, 2004; Guastavino et al, 2005; Maffiolo et al, 1998; Raimbault et al, 2003).
It is noted that, in addition to the type of sound, the loudness may also influence
the categorisation. A study of the relation between loudness and pleasantness shows
that the pleasantness of stimuli at intermediate loudness levels is not influenced by its
loudness, but for sound at relatively high loudness levels there is a good correlation
between the two (Zeitler and Hellbruck, 1999; Zwicker and Fastl, 1999).
The methodology in the field of product sound quality is closely related to the
soundscape evaluation of urban open spaces. However, though the basic psychoacous-
tic magnitudes can be used to evaluate individual sounds (Keiper, 1997), the complexity
of the sound components in urban open spaces should be considered. For example, it
has been demonstrated that, for sounds with multiple tonal components, the percep-
tual process is different from that for a single tonal component because the attention of
the subjects is not automatically focused (Bodden and Heinrichs, 2001). Moreover, the
meaning of a sound may considerably influence the evaluation. In order to study this
effect, a procedure has been proposed to remove the meaning of a sound, but to retain
the other characteristics, such as loudness (Fastl, 2001). Furthermore, not only percep-
tual factors, but also cognitive factors, such as memory, play an important role in
global loudness judgments. It has been demonstrated that the overall loudness is higher
than the average of instantaneous loudness judgments (Hellbruck et al, 2001).
It is important to identify key factors in sound evaluation. For product sound quality,
through the use of semantic analysis it was suggested that three main factors were
powerful, metallic, and pleasant (Kuwano and Namba, 2001). Additional factors could
be used for any special sound, such as `dieselness' for diesel cars (Patsouras et al, 2001).
For general environmental sounds, it was demonstrated that evaluation, timbre,
power, and temporal change were four essential factors (Zeitler and Hellbru ck, 2001).
For residential areas, a study in Sweden showed that the soundscape was characterised
in four dimensions, namely adverse, reposing, affective, and expressionless (Berglund
et al, 2001).
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 73

3.2 Space
In addition to evaluating sounds, the acoustic effects of an urban open space should be
taken into account. It has been demonstrated that, with a constant SPL, noise annoy-
ance is greater with a longer reverberation (Kang, 1988). On the other hand, a suitable
reverberation time, say 1 ^ 2 s, can make `street music' more enjoyable. Depending on
the usage of an urban open space, an appropriate reverberation might be determined,
although the requirement is much less critical than that in room acoustics, and the
concept of reverberation in outdoor spaces may not be the same as that for enclosed
spaces. In addition to reverberation, sound distribution and reflection patterns as
discussed in section 5.2, are also important for soundscape evaluation.
In urban open spaces there are often different sound zones, and in each zone there
might be a dominant sound. This is especially important for soundscape evaluation
when this sound is related to the users' activities, such as group dancing. Also, sounds
that are far away, close-up, or moving in juxtaposition to the users may provide
different information and thus affect the evaluation. In sound-quality research it has
been shown that psychoacoustic qualities are different between stable and passing
sounds (Genuit, 2001).
3.3 People
Social and demographic factors of the users may play an important role in the sound-
scape evaluation (Kang et al, 2003). The survey in Europe showed that there was no
significant difference amongst different age groups in terms of the subjective evaluation
of a sound level (1, very quiet; 2, quiet; 3, neither quiet nor noisy; 4, noisy; and 5, very
noisy), whereas in terms of acoustic comfort (1, very comfortable; 2, comfortable;
3, neither comfortable nor uncomfortable; 4, uncomfortable; and 5, very uncomfort-
able), the differences were significantteenagers tended to be the most unsatisfied
group, and older people (> 55 years) were the most satisfied group (p < 0:05). It was
also found that, with the increase of age, people were more favourable to, or tolerant
towards, sounds relating to nature, culture, or human activities. As an example, figure 2
shows the variation of sound preference amongst age groups for birdsongs, based on
the survey in Sheffield. By contrast, young people were more favourable to, or tolerant
towards, music and mechanical sounds, as also shown in figure 2, with music from
stores used as an example. No significant difference was found between males and
females, in terms of the sound-level evaluation, acoustic comfort, or sound preferences.
In addition some other special characteristics of the users should be considered.
For example, people with stereos may have different sound evaluation from others
(Bull, 2000).
A comparison between various countries indicated that culture differences could
lead to rather different acoustic comfort evaluation and sound preferences (Yang and
Kang, 2003). For example, for water sounds the preferences in Sheffield and Sesto
San Giovanni were significantly different ( p < 0:01) in the former over 75 ^ 84% of
the interviewees rated water sounds as `favourite', whereas in the latter, this value was
less than 28%. Similarly, a cross-cultural comparison of community responses to
road-traffic noise in Japan and Sweden suggested that nonacoustic factors, including
the different customs of the people living in different countries and in different types
of housing were important for annoyance evaluation (Sato et al, 1998). Another
cross-cultural study on the factors of sound quality of environmental noise, using
semantic differential analysis in Japan, Germany, USA, and China, demonstrated
notable differences between the four countries (Kuwano et al, 1999).
The idea and experience of an `environment' is a historically conditioned refraction
of cultural life. As Schwartz (1995) argued, nothing quite so dramatic has happened
74 M Zhang, J Kang

Favourite, music Favourite, birds

Neither favourite nor annoying, Neither favourite nor annoying, birds
music
Annoying music Annoying, birds

100

80

60
Percemtage

40

20

0
10 17 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55 64 65
Age groups (years)
Figure 2. Variation of sound preference amongst age groups for birdsong and music from stores.

with regard to noise. When there was no traffic noise, the soundscape in cities was
filled with church bells, from every direction, day and night. The astonishing success of
the 19th and early 20th century campaign to limit the ringing of church bells is most
relevant here, for church bells had grown neither louder nor more numerous since, say,
the 16th century (Girdner, 1897). However, church bells were silenced because they
belonged to a constellation of sounds whose significance was in the process of being
reconfigured. The last 150 years have been witness to a thorough redefinition of the
nature of sound and the ambit of noise.
The assessment of the sound quality of an urban area depends on how long people
have been living there, how they define the area in terms of dependency on the
infrastructure, and how much they have been involved in the social life in the area
(Schulte-Fortkamp and Nitsch, 1999). This is also true for urban open spaces. Expecta-
tion is another issue in soundscape evaluation. In fact noise regulations are based on
an assumption that people expect a different noise environment depending on different
qualities of their living environment. Such expectations depend on many social and
economic factors and are very difficult to predict, especially for a universal model
(Botteldooren et al, 2001). Sound experience, such as exposure to noise at the place
of work and sound exposure over time, is also important (Bertoni et al, 1993), although
a study seems to suggest that recent experience of negative events is not related to
reaction (Job et al, 1999).
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 75

3.4 Environment
Another significant aspect of the soundscape evaluation in urban open spaces is the
interaction between acoustic and other physical ^ environmental conditions (Mudri
and Lenard, 2000). For example, if an urban open space is very hot or very cold,
the acoustic comfort could become less critical and less important in the overall
comfort evaluation.
On the basis of the results of the European sites, principal-component analysis was
made to examine the relationship between the overall physical comfort evaluation of
an urban open space and the subjective evaluation of various physical ^ environmental
indices, including temperature, sunshine, brightness, wind, view, humidity, and sound
level. Three factors were determined. Factor 1 (22.8%), including temperature, sunshine,
brightness, and wind, is the most important factor. Factor 2 (17.5%) is associated with
visual and aural senses, showing that the acoustic environment is one of the main
factors influencing the overall comfort in an urban open public space. Factor 3
(14.8%) is principally related to humidity, and includes humidity and wind. The above
factors only cover 55% of the total variance, suggesting that other aspects, such a
social ^ cultural factors, may also influence the evaluation.
Considerable research has been carried out on aural ^ visual interactions. Research
in gardens showed that a positive evaluation of the landscape reduces annoyance of the
soundscapes, whereas a negative evaluation of the landscape increases annoyance
(Maffiolo et al, 1999). For most environmental sounds, including birdsong, cicadas
song, music, water flow, wind ring, frogs, barks, vehicles, and waves, it was demon-
strated experimentally that good or moderate sights can enhance people's sense of
favourability (Tsai and Lai, 2001). It was also showed that, the more urban visual
settings were, the more contaminated the auditory judgment was (Carles et al, 1992;
Viollon et al, 2002). This auditory dependence with the visual information was multi-
sided: all the human sounds, involving either footsteps or voices, were not influenced,
whereas all the nonhuman sounds, involving no human presence, were significantly
influenced. The aural ^ visual interaction was also studied in the field of product sound
quality. For noise in cars, it was demonstrated that the effect of a visual image reduced
the negative impression of sound quality and the amount was sometimes equivalent
to a 10 dB reduction in SPL. Similarly, a study on the sound-quality evaluation of
construction machines showed that the results obtained by presenting sound only
were more unpleasant, more powerful, and sharper than those obtained by presenting
sound with scenery (Hatano et al, 2001).
The above results seem to suggest that the evaluation of soundscape in urban open
spaces should not be conducted by audio recording and then laboratory listening tests.
One alternative could be to evaluate the soundscape with simultaneously recorded
video, but this still ignores some other factors, such as humidity and temperature,
which could have similar effects to the visual factors. A more appropriate method
would be field survey.

4 Soundscape description
To investigate the existing acoustic environment in an urban open space or to design a
new soundscape, it is vital to use an appropriate system or framework to describe the
soundscape. On the basis of the soundscape evaluation as analysed in section 3, such a
system or framework is proposed, as shown in figure 3. The description includes four
facets, namely characteristics of each sound, acoustic effects of the space, the social ^
demographic aspects of the users, and other aspects of the physical and environmental
conditions.
76 M Zhang, J Kang

Sound pressure level

Spectrum Variation (hour, day, season)

Temporal conditions Duration

Source

Location Impulsive characteristics

Source movement

Psychological and social characteristics Meaning

Natural or artificial sound

Reverberation

Relation to activities

Reflection pattern and/or echogram

Space Soundmark

General background sound

Descriptive or holistic

Sounds around the space

Social ^ demographic ^ cultural characteristics of the users

People
Acoustic condition at users' home and work, experience, etc

Temperature, humidity, lighting, etc

Environment

Visual, landscape, and architectural characteristics

Figure 3. A system for the soundscape description in urban open spaces.

The system also corresponds to the results of semantic differential analysis. On the
basis of the nineteen case-study sites, varimax rotated principal-component analysis
was employed to extract the orthogonal factor underlying the eighteen adjective indi-
ces. With a criterion factor of eigenvalue > 1, four factors were determined for charac-
terising soundscapes in urban open spaces, including relaxation, communication,
spatiality, and dynamics (Kang and Zhang, 2002; Zhang and Kang, 2004). Similarly,
Raimbault et al (2003) also suggested that three categories of analysis should be
considered for such spaces: activities such as human presence or transport; spatial
attributes, such as location; and time history, including moments or periods.
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 77

For each sound, the SPL, spectrum, temporal conditions, source location, source
movement, and the psychological and social characteristics should be considered. In
terms of sound level, both the steady-state SPL and the statistical SPL should be taken
into account. In terms of frequency, if tonal components were noted, it would be useful
to consider a narrowband spectrum.
The temporal effect may be related to the dynamic characteristics of hearing. It was
demonstrated that when the temporal pattern of a sound is systematically varied, the
sound which has the high-level portion at the beginning is perceived as being louder,
which might be caused by the overshoot at the onset of the sound (Kuwano and
Namba, 2001). The description should include the rate and pattern of the sound
occurrence; sound sequences; and passages of time such as acoustic actions of starting
and stopping, adding and subtracting, and expanding and contracting. The perception
of a sound also varies according to its duration. The shorter the duration is, the
sharper the sound is judged (Kuwano and Namba, 2001). Impulsive characteristics,
including peak level as well as rise and fall time, should also be taken into account.
Considerable research has been carried out on the determination of the loudness of
impulse sounds (Meunier et al, 2001; Scharf, 1978).
The location and movement of sound sources are of particular importance for the
soundscape in urban open spaces. People have a natural ability to isolate sounds in
relation to their approximate positions: be those sounds behind, to the side, above, below,
or in front of the head (Wenzel, 1992). The auditory system is also capable of detecting,
from a variety of acoustic events, detailed information about the distance of the sound
source, its velocity, the direction of its movement, and even its size and weight.
Another aspect of a sound in an urban open space is its psychological and social
characteristics. Sound figures can be natural in occurrence or can be selected by the
will of the listener. On the basis of a cognitive approach of urban soundscape, it was
suggested to identify the meaningful categories of sounds and their properties at
linguistic and psychological levels before describing them in physical dimensions and
experimentally manipulating them in psychological paradigms (Dubois, 2000). In
describing the psychological and social characteristics of a sound, it is necessary to
distinguish natural and human-made sounds, to indicate the relationship of a sound
to the activities in the urban open space, and to identify whether a sound is related to
the soundmark of the urban open space or the city. Consideration should also be given
regarding descriptive or holistic listening.
The acoustic effects from an urban open space should be considered. Relevant
factors include the shape of the space, boundary materials, street and square furniture,
and landscape elements. In addition to reverberation, reflection patterns and/or echo-
grams, and possible acoustic defects such as echoes and focus effects, should be
checked for. It is also important to describe the general background sound and
any sound sources around an urban open space. It has been demonstrated that the
surrounding acoustic environment may affect a subjective evaluation of an urban open
space (Yang and Kang, 2001).
The social ^ demographic aspects of the users of an urban open space are vital, and
thus relevant information should be described. This includes their gender, age, place of
livingthat is, whether a local resident or from another cityand their cultural and
educational background. The acoustic experience of the users is also important, as is
the acoustic environment at their home and working places.
In addition to the description of soundscape, it is essential to describe other
aspects of physical and environmental conditions, including temperature, humidity,
wind, sun, luminosity, and glare. The visual environment, as well as the landscape and
architectural features of an urban open space, should also be considered.
78 M Zhang, J Kang

5 Soundscape creation
In this section issues relating to the soundscape creation and design in urban open
spaces are discussed, following the framework in figure 3, with a focus on two design-
able aspects, sound and space. A brief design diagram is shown in figure 4. If the
overall sound level is higher than a certain value, say 65 ^ 70 dBA, people will feel
annoyed, whatever the type of sound is. In this case it is important to reduce sound
levels. Conversely, if the overall sound level is not high, the design of various sounds is
more important.

Soundscape description

SPL is greater than

approximately 65 ^ 70 dBA

SPL is less than approx-

imately 65 ^ 70 dBA

Reduce SPL with

^ square form
^ boundaries
^ square `furniture'

Design sounds and soundmarks

^ create active sounds
^ design passive sounds
Design space with boundaries and elements
^ reverberation
^ SPL distribution
^ reflection pattern

Social aspects Environmental aspects

Figure 4. Soundscape design process in urban open spaces. SPL denotes sound pressure level.

5.1 Sound
In the soundscape creation and design of an urban open space, it would be useful to
consider soundmarks, reflecting traditional and cultural characteristics. Sound sources
in an urban open space can be divided into two types, namely active sounds and
passive sounds. Active sounds relate to sounds from the activities in the space, such
as group dancing, and passive sounds relate to the sounds from the landscape elements,
such as fountains.
As a typical active sound, live music is always very popular. People are not only
interested in the music itself, but are also attracted by the activities of the players.
In this case the type of music (for example, classical music or pop music) is not a
very important issue. However, when music is played through loudspeakers, the type of
music as well as the sound level needs to be considered carefully. On the basis of the
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 79

field study in one of the case-study sites in Sheffield, Barkers Pool, it has been shown
that most people do not like loud music played from loudspeakers, whatever the music
type is (Kang et al, 2004). An urban open space can be designed to encourage activities
generating active sounds. From field surveys it was shown that some patterns of design
are more suitable for certain activities (Kang and Yang, 2002).
To introduce passive sounds, many kinds of design feature with favourable sounds
can be applied, both for functional and aesthetic purposes. The sounds of water are
attractive to most people, but particular attention must be paid to the water flow rate.
The flow rate of a water feature should not be constant. Keeping it at the same sound
level range may make people lose interest such that the effect on their psychological
adaptation would diminish with time.
Active and passive sounds can be used to mask the noises. In this case, although
the overall sound level may not be decreased or may even be increased, people may feel
that the acoustic environment is more comfortable. Spectrum analysis is important,
both for individual sounds and for the overall acoustic environment. For example, our
survey on different water features suggests that high-frequency components generally
come from the water splash itself, whereas, when a large flow of water is raised to
a very high level and then dropped to a water body or hard surface, notable low
frequency components can be generated. Another related phenomenon in terms of
introducing natural sounds is that animal and insect vocalisations tended to occupy
small bands of frequencies, leaving `spectral niches' into which the vocalisations of
other animals, birds, or insects can fit. As urban areas spread, the accompanying noise
might block or mask spectral niches and, if mating calls go unheard, a species might
die out (Krause, 1993).
The creation and design of soundscape in an urban open space should be con-
sidered as a dynamic process. The soundscape variation with seasons, days, and
different times of typical days should be taken into account, as should differences
in soundscape between the designed space and the surrounding acoustic environ-
ment. It is useful to relate the design with a sound excursion of the urban open space
or the city, using a series of typical listening points (Dietze, 2000; Westerkamp, 2000).
5.2 Space
Effects of architectural changes and urban-design options on the sound field of urban
open spaces have been studied using computer models (Kang, 2005; Kang and Zhang,
2003; Meng and Kang, 2004). This is important for controlling sound fields in urban
open spacesfor example, reducing sound levels from unwanted sound sources.
It has been shown that, in an urban square with diffusely reflecting boundaries, the
reverberation is generally much shorter and the sound attenuation with source ^ receiver
distance is greater than in those squares with geometrically reflecting boundaries. Even
for facades and ground for which only about 20% of the energy incident upon the
boundaries is diffusely reflected, the sound field in an urban square is close to that
resulting from purely diffusely reflecting boundaries. This means that the effect of
adding even a small amount of diffusion to an urban square, in which the reflections
are mainly specular, can be very beneficial from the viewpoint of urban-noise reduction.
In a similar way to diffuse boundaries, street or square furniture such as lampposts,
fences, barriers, benches, telephone boxes, and bus shelters can also be effective in
reducing noise.
Figures 5 to 7 illustrate the SPL distribution simulated using the radiosity model
in a number of hypothetical urban squares with diffusely reflecting boundaries, where
a point source is positioned at x square length=10, y square width=10, z 1:5 m,
and the receiver plane is at 1.2 m. It is shown that: (1) if the square side is doubled,
80 M Zhang, J Kang

the SPL is typically 6 ^ 9 dB lower in the far field; figures 5(a) ^ (c) compare the
SPL distribution in three squares, 25 m  25 m, 50 m  50 m and 100 m  100 m,
in which the square height is 20 m and the boundary absorption coefficient is 0.1.

(a) (b)

(c)

(d)
Figure 5. Sound distribution in urban squares with different sizes and shapes: (a) 25 m  25 m;
(b) 50 m  50 m; (c) 100 m  100 m; (d) 25 m  100 m. The square height is 20 m and the
boundary absorption coefficient is 0.1. Each shade represents 3 dB.
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 81

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Sound distribution in urban squares with different heights: (a) 6 m; (b) 50 m. The square
size is 50 m  50 m and the boundary absorption coefficient is 0.1. Each shade represents 3 dB.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Sound distribution in urban squares with different boundary absorption coefficients:
(a) a 0:3; (b) a 0:5; (c) a 0:7; (d) a 0:9. The square size is 50 m  50 m and the square
height is 20 m. Each shade represents 3 dB.

(2) For a given square area, with a greater aspect ratio the SPL attenuation is con-
siderably greater in the far field, as can be seen by comparing figures 5(b) and 5(d),
namely a 50 m  50 m square and a 25 m  100 m `square'. (3) The SPL increases with
increasing square height. For example, between square heights 6 m and 50 m, the SPL
difference is typically 8 dB, as can be seen in figure 6, in which the square size is
50 m  50 m and the boundary absorption coefficient is 0.1; and (4) with the increase
of boundary absorption coefficients, the SPL reduces proportionally, as can be seen in
figure 7, in which the square size is 50 m  50 m and the square height is 20 m. The
reduction is typically 12 dB when the absorption coefficient is increased from 0.1 to 0.9.
82 M Zhang, J Kang

Vegetation on building facades and the ground can increase boundary diffusion of
incident sound and can also increase boundary absorption, thus reducing noise further.
Similarly, the effect of trees in urban open spaces will be to introduce additional
absorption and scattering. Owing to multiple reflections, vegetation is especially effective
in urban context. Landscape elements can also be used to create certain sound fields.
Experimental research into woods shows that the trunks could scatter sound with
different time delays, such that the conditions for the sensations of spaciousness and
envelopment are created (Ruspa, 2001).
Given the importance of aural and visual interactions, an integrative consideration
of landscape and soundscape elements is vital. For example, with the same traffic,
the soundscape could differ significantly with the highway view, vegetation view, and
noise barrier view (Nathanail and Guyot, 2001). A more direct connection between
landscape and soundscape is sonic sculptures (Harvey, 2000).
If there are several acoustic zones in an urban open space, a suitable aural space or
the source ^ listener distance for each zone should be designed. It is interesting to note
that the scale of an aural space changes with time and place. Preindustrial soundscapes
and sounds emanating from a listener's own community may be heard at a consider-
able distance, thereby reinforcing a sense of space and position and maintaining a
relationship with home (Wrightson, 2000). Nowadays it is common that one's aural
space is reduced to less than that of human proportions (Truax, 1984).

6 Conclusions
On the basis of a series of recent studies and an intensive literature review, the
soundscape description, evaluation, and creation in urban open spaces have been
systematically discussed. Factors affecting soundscape evaluation in urban open spaces
were identified and, consequently, a system for soundscape description has been
established. It has been shown that soundscape in urban open spaces is not just a
noise-control issue, and also not just an acoustic issue. A number of aspects need to be
considered, including acoustic ^ psychological ^ social characteristics of various sounds,
acoustic effects of space boundaries and elements, social ^ demographic characteristics
of users, and general physical and environmental conditions. Potentials of creating and
designing soundscape in urban open spaces have also been demonstrated, in terms of
sound and space.
To provide an overall evaluation of a soundscape, it would be important to inte-
grate various factors discussed above. A possible way is to use the artificial neural
networks, which have been proved to be successful through a pilot study (Yu and Kang,
2005), but further work is still needed.
Acknowledgements. The authors wish to thank Dr W Yang, Dr J Joynt, and the project partners
for useful discussions, and the interviewees for their support. This research was funded by the
European Commission and the British Academy.
References
Ballas J A, 1993, ``Common factors in the identification of an assortment of brief everyday sounds''
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 19 250 ^ 267
Berglund B, Eriksen C A, Nilsson M E, 2001, ``Perceptual characterization of soundscapes in
residential areas'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome,
http://www.icacommision.org/ICA-menu.html
Bertoni D, Franchini A, Magnoni M, Tartoni P, Vallet M, 1993, ``Reaction of people to urban
traffic noise in Modena, Italy'', in Noise and Man 93: Proceedings of the 6th Congress on
Noise as a Public Health Problem 2 593 ^ 596, International Commission on Biological
Effects of Noise, www.icben.org
Blauert J, Jekosch U, 1997, ``Sound-quality evaluation a multi-layered problem'' Acta Acustica
united with Acustica 83 747 ^ 753
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 83

Bodden M, 1997, ``Instrumentation for sound quality evaluation''Acta Acustica united with Acustica
83 775 ^ 783
Bodden M, Heinrichs R, 2001, ``Moderators of sound quality of complex sounds with multiple
tonal components'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA)
Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Botteldooren D, Verkeyn A, Lercher P, 2001, ``How can we distinguish exposure and expectation
effects in integrated soundscape analyses? '', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress
on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Bull M, 2000 Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life (Berg,
London)
Carles J L, Bernaldez F G, De Lucio J V, 1992, ``Audiovisual interactions and soundscape
preferences'' Landscape Research 17 52 ^ 56
Corbin A, 1998 Village Bells: Sound and Meaning in the 19th Century French Countryside (Columbia
University Press, New York)
de Ruiter E, 2004 Reclaiming Land From Urban Traffic Noise Impact Zones The Great Canyon
PhD dissertation, Technical University of Delft, Delft
Dietze L, 2000, ``Learning is living: acoustic ecology as pedagogical grounda report on
experience'' Soundscape: The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 1 20 ^ 21
Dubois D, 2000, ``Categories as acts of meaning: the case of categories in olfaction and audition''
Cognitive Science Quarterly 1 35 ^ 68
EU, 2002, ``Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June
2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise'' Official Journal of
the European Communities L189 12 ^ 25, 18 July (European Union, Brussels)
Fastl H, 1997, ``The psychoacoustics of sound-quality evaluation''Acta Acustica united with Acustica
83 754 ^ 764
Fastl H, 2001, ``Neutralizing the meaning of sound for sound quality evaluation'', in Proceedings
of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/
ICA-menu.html
Fields J M, Dejong R G, Brown A L, Flindell I H, Gjestland T, Job R F S, Kurra S, Lercher P,
Schuemer-Kohrs A, Vallet M, Yano T, 1997, ``Guidelines for reporting core information from
community noise reaction surveys'' Journal of Sound and Vibration 20 685 ^ 695
Fujimoto K, Kato T, Ueno R, 1998,``Human response to soundscape in Fukuoka'', in Proceedings of
Internoise98 Christchurch, New Zealand, International Institute of Noise Control Engineering,
pp 61 ^ 66
Gaver W, 1993,``What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception''
Ecological Psychology 5 1 ^ 29
Genuit K, 2001, ``The problem of predicting noise annoyance as a function of distance'',
in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome,
http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Girdner J H, 1897, ``To abate the plague of city noises'' North American Review 165 463
Grimwood C J, 1993, ``A national survey of the effects of environmental noise on people at home''
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 15 69 ^ 76
Guastavino C, Cheminee P, 2004, ``A psycholinguistic approach to the ecological validity of
experimental settings: the case of low frequency perception'' Food Quality and Preference
15 884 ^ 886
Guastavino C, Katz B, 2004, ``Perceptual evaluation of multi-dimensional spatial audio
reproduction'' Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116 1105 ^ 1115
Guastavino C, Katz B, Polack J-D, Levitin D, Dubois D, 2005, ``Ecological validity of soundscape
reproduction'' Acta Acustica united with Acustica 91 333 ^ 341
Guski R, 1997, ``Psychological methods for evaluating sound quality and assessing acoustic
information'' Acta Acustica united with Acustica 83 765 ^ 774
Harvey L, 2000, ``Australian forum for acoustic ecology'' Soundscape: The Journal of Acoustic
Ecology 1 4
Hatano S, Hashimoto T, Kumura Y, Tanaka T, 2001, ``Sound quality evaluation of construction
machine'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome,
http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Hellbruck J, Kato T, Zeitler A, Schick A, Kuwano S, Namba S, 2001, ``Loudness scaling of traffic
noise: perceptual and cognitive factors'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on
Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
84 M Zhang, J Kang

Hinton J, Bloomfield A, 2000, ``Local noise mapping: the future? '' Proceedings of the Institute of
Acoustics 22 431 ^ 436
Htouris S, 2001, ``A comparative interpretation of soundscape and noise'', in Proceedings of the 17th
International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Iwamiya S,Yanagihara M, 1998, ``Features of the soundscape in Fukuoka city, a major city in Japan,
recognized by foreign residents'', in Proceedings of Inter-noise98 Christchurch, New Zealand,
International Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Jarviluoma H, 2000, ``Acoustic environments in change: five village soundscapes revisited''
Soundscape: The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 1 25
Job R F S, Hatfield J, Carter N L, Peploe P, Taylor R, Morrell S, 1999, ``Reaction to noise: the roles
of soundscape, enviroscape and psychscape'', in Proceedings of Inter-noise99 Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, International Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Kang J, 1988, ``Experiments on the subjective assessment of noise reduction by absorption
treatments'' Noise and Vibration Control 5 20 ^ 28 (in Chinese)
Kang J, 2000, ``Sound propagation in street canyons: comparison between diffusely and
geometrically reflecting boundaries'' Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107 1394 ^ 1404
Kang J, 2001,``Sound propagation in interconnected urban streets: a parametric study'' Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 281 ^ 294
Kang J, 2002 Acoustics of Long Spaces: Theory and Design Guide (Thomas Telford, London)
Kang J, 2005, ``Numerical modelling of the sound fields in urban squares'' Journal of Acoustical
Society of America 117 3695 ^ 3706
Kang J, 2006 Urban Sound Environment (Spon Press, London)
Kang J, Wang W, 2002, ``Soundscape in urban open public spaces'' World Architecture 144 76 ^ 79
Kang J, Zhang M, 2002, ``Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape of urban open public
spaces'' Journal of Acoustical Society of America 112 2435
Kang J, Zhang M, 2003, ``Acoustic simulation and soundscape in urban squares'', in Proceedings of
the 10th International Congress on Sound and Vibration Stockholm, Sweden, The International
Institute of Acoustics and Vibration, http://www.iiav.org/
Kang J,Yang W, Zhang M, 2003,``Soundscape and acoustic comfort in urban open public spaces'', in
Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics Cyprus,
International Society for Psychophysics, 31 Chemin Joseph Aiguier, F-13009, pp 139 ^ 144
Kang J, Yang W, Zhang M, 2004, ``Sound environment and acoustic comfort in urban spaces'', in
Designing Open Spaces in the Urban Environment: A Bioclimatic Approach Ed. M Nikolopoulou
(European Commission and the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources, Brussels) pp 32 ^ 36,
http://alpha.cres.gr/ruros/dg en.pdf
Karlsson H, 2000, ``The acoustic environment as a public domain'' Soundscape: The Journal of
Acoustic Ecology 1 10 ^ 13
Keiper W, 1997, ``Sound quality evaluation in the product cycle'' Acta Acustica united with Acustica
83 784 ^ 788
Kihlman T, Kropp W, Ohrstrom E, Berglund B, 2001, ``Soundscape support to health. A cross-
disciplinary research program'', in Proceedings of the Inter-noise01 The Hague, International
Institute of Noise Control Engineering, pp 1237 ^ 1242
Krause B L, 1993, ``The niche hypothesis: a hidden symphony of animal sounds, the originals of
musical expression and the health of habitats'' The Explorers Journal Winter, 156 ^ 160
Kuwano S, Namba S, 2001, ``Dimension of sound quality and their measurement'', in Proceedings
of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/
ICA-menu.html
Kuwano S, Namba S, Zhen D R, Fastl H, Schick A, 1999, ``A cross-cultural study of the factors
of sound quality of environmental noise'' Journal of Acoustical Society of America 105 1081
Lercher P, Widmann U, 2001, ``Mental health and a complex sound environment in an Alpine
valley: a case study'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA)
Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
MaffioloV, David S, Dubois D,Vogel C, Castellengo M, Polack J-D, 1997,``Sound characterization of
urban environment'', in Proceedings of Inter-noise97 Budapest, Hungary, International Institute
of Noise Control Engineering
Maffiolo V, Dubois D, David S, Castellengo M, Polack J-D, 1998, ``Loudness and pleasantness
in structuration of urban soundscapes'', in Proceedings of Inter-noise98 Christchurch,
New Zealand, International Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Soundscapes in urban open spaces 85

Maffiolo V, Castellengo M, Dubois D, 1999, ``Qualitative judgements of urban soundscapes'', in

Proceedings of Inter-noise99 Fort Lauderdale, FL, International Institute of Noise Control
Engineering
Meng Y, Kang J, 2004,``Fast simulation of sound fields for urban square animation'', in Proceedings
of Inter-noise04 Prague, International Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Meunier S, Boullet I, Rabau G, 2001,``Loudness of impulsive environmental sounds'', in Proceedings
of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http:/www.icacommission.org/
ICA-menu.html
Mudri L, Lenard J D, 2000, ``Comfortable and/or pleasant ambience: conflicting issues? '', in
Proceedings of PLEA 2000: Architecture, City, Environment Cambridge (Earthscan, London),
pp 599 ^ 604
Nathanail C, Guyot F, 2001, ``Parameters influencing perception of highway traffic noise'', in
Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome,
http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Osgood C E, Suci G J, Tannenbaum P H, 1957 The Measurement of Meaning (University Press of
Illinois, Urbana, IL)
Patsouras Ch, Fastle H, Patsouras D, Pfaffelhuber K, 2001, ``Psychoacoustic sensation magnitudes
and sound quality rating of upper middle class cars' idling noise'', in Proceedings of the 17th
International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Raimbault M, Berengier M, Dubois D, 2003, ``Ambient sound assessment of urban environments:
field studies in two French cities'' Applied Acoustics 64 1241 ^ 1256
Ruspa G, 2001, ``Sound effects within a wood'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress
on Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Sato T,Yano T,Yamashita T, Kawai K, Rylander R, Bjorkman M, Ohrstro} m E, 1998,``Cross-cultural
comparison of community responses to road traffic noise in Gothenburg, Sweden, and
Kumamoto, Japan, part 2: causal modelling by path analysis'', in Proceedings of the 7th
International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem Sydney, Australia, International
Commission on Biological Effects of Noise, http://www.icben.org
Schafer R M, 1977 The Tuning of the World (Knopf, New York), republished in 1994, as Our Sonic
Environment and the Soundscape: The Tuning of the World (Destiny Books, Rochester, VT)
Scharf B, 1978,``Loudness'', in Handbook of Perception Eds E C Carterette, M P Friedman (Academic
Press, New York) pp 187 ^ 242
Schulte-Fortkamp B, Nitsch W, 1999, ``On soundscapes and their meaning regarding noise
annoyance measurements'', in Proceedings of Inter-noise99 Fort Lauderdale, FL, International
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Schwartz H, 1995, ``Noise and silence: the soundscape and spirituality'', in Proceedings of Realizing
the Ideal: the Responsibility of the World's Religions Section 4: Religion and the Ideal
Environment Seoul, Korea, Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace, http://www.nonoise.org/
library/noisesil/noisesil.htm
Shaw E A G, 1996, ``Noise environments outdoors and the effects of community noise exposure''
Noise Control Engineering Journal 44 109 ^ 119
Skinner C J, Grimwood C J, 2005, ``The UK noise climate 1990 ^ 2001: population exposure and
attitudes to environmental noise'' Applied Acoustics 66 231 ^ 243
Smith B R, 2000 The Acoustic World of Early Modern England: Attending to the O-factor (University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
Susini P, McAdams S, Winsberg S, 1999, ``A multidimensional technique for sound quality
assessment'' Acta Acustica united with Acustica 85 650 ^ 656
Tamura A, 1998, ``An environmental index based on inhabitants' recognition of sounds'', in
Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem Sydney,
Australia, International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise, http://www.icben.org
Truax B, 1984 Acoustic Communication (Ablex, Norwood, NJ)
Truax B, 1999 Handbook for Acoustic Ecology (Cambridge Street Publishing, Burnaby, BC)
Tsai K T, Lai P R, 2001, ``The research of the interactions between the environmental sound
and sight'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics (ICA) Rome,
http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Viollon S, Lavandier C, Drake C, 2002, ``Influence of visual setting on sound ratings in an urban
environment'' Applied Acoustics 63 493 ^ 511
Wenzel E, 1992, ``Launching sounds into space'', in Cyberarts: exploring art and technology
Ed. L Jacobson, Miller Freeman Inc., 600 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA
86 M Zhang, J Kang

Westerkamp H, 2000,``Sound excursion: Plano Pilato, Brasilia'' Soundscape:The Journal of Acoustic

Ecology 1 20 ^ 21
Wrightson K, 2000, ``An introduction to acoustic ecology'' Soundscape: The Journal of Acoustic
Ecology 1 10 ^ 13
Yang W, Kang J, 2001, ``Acoustic comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for soundscape
design in urban open public spaces'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on
Acoustics (ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Yang W, Kang J, 2003, ``A cross-cultural study of the soundscape in urban open public spaces'',
in Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Sound and Vibration Stockholm, Sweden,
pp 2703 ^ 2710
Yang W, Kang J, 2005a,``Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces''Applied Acoustics
66 211 ^ 229
Yang W, Kang J, 2005b, ``Soundscape and sound preferences in urban squares'' Journal of Urban
Design 10 69 ^ 88
Yu L, Kang J, 2005, ``Soundscape evaluation in city open spaces using artificial neural network'',
in Proceedings of UIA 2005 22nd World Congress of Architecture Istanbul, International
Union of Architects, 51 rue Raynouard, 75016 Paris
Yuki M R, 2000 Towards a Literary Theory of Acoustic Ecology: Soundscapes in Contemporary
Environmental Literature PhD dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
Zeitler A, Hellbruck J, 1999, ``Sound quality assessment of everyday-noises by means of
psychophysical scaling'', in Proceedings of Inter-noise99 Fort Lauderdale, FL, International
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Zeitler A, Hellbruck J, 2001, ``Semantic attributes of environmental sounds and their correlations
with psychoacoustic magnitudes'', in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress on Acoustics
(ICA) Rome, http://www.icacommission.org/ICA-menu.html
Zhang M, Kang J, 2004, ``Evaluation of urban soundscape by future architects'' The Journal of
Acoustical Society of America 115 2497
Zwicker E, Fastl H, 1999 Psychoacoustics Facts and Models (Springer, Berlin)

2007 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain