Page 16 - January 2007

son uses automatically as a criterion for orientation and
evaluation, must be explored in detail. Especially, a collec-
tive feeling of identity has a major impact on the expectan-
cies and claims people have concerning their sound envi-
3–10
Summary
The combination of physical and psycho-acoustical measurements with scientific evaluation of perceptual responses to environmental noise, known as Soundscaping, is an essential method for assessing and actualizing environments. Determining the properties of the soundscape which lead to specific human emotions (e.g. calmness, annoyance, discontentment, anxiety, etc., besides the pathogenic effects) will go far beyond measur- ing the sound pressure alone. For those reasons, different types of data (qualitative and quantitative) must be com- pared and combined. Interviews with exposed people will highlight the data acquisition to consider all the objective and subjective dimensions that are relevant in the context of soundscapes.
Therefore, diverse boundary conditions have to be taken into account to reflect adequately the circumstances of everyday life. By means of the newly-defined parame- ters, it will be possible to propose a range of measures and solutions that can be integrated in models for improving urban soundscapes and urban planning concepts.
One more remark
During the past 10 years in “Soundscape and Community Noise” there has been much research done and knowledge gained about sonic environments related to daily life and lifestyle. But, as Mike Stinson pointed out in his recent overview on noise in Acoustics Today, Vol. 2, July 2006: “We’re not done yet!”
As we seek to develop and refine the methods of Soundscaping further the following actions are needed:
• Cataloging correlations between physical parame- ters and perceptual responses
• Standardizing a terminology lexicon of soundscape descriptors
• Standardizing measurement procedures
• Listing recommendations for perceptual evaluation
and analysis
• Setting up an international working group on
Soundscapes AT
References
1 R. M. Schafer, The Soundscape, Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world (Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont, 1977).
2 B. Schulte-Fortkamp and D. Dubois (guest editors), “Recent advances Soundscape research,” special issue of Acta Acustica united with Acustica 92 (6), v-viii (2006).
3 B. M. Brooks, “Community design with soundscape in mind,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(4), 2551 (A) (2005).
4 B. M. Brooks, “Traditional measurement methods for charac- terizing soundscapes.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119(5), 3260 (A) (2006).
5 A. Fiebig and B. Schulte-Fortkamp, “Techniques of analysis and their applicability in the context of community noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(4) 2592(A) (2005).
6 B. Schulte-Fortkamp and A. Fiebig, “Soundscape analysis in a residential area: An evaluation of noise and people’s mind,” Acta Acustica united with Acustica 92(6), 875–880 (2006).
7 K. Genuit, and W.R. Bray, “Soundscape Measurement and Analysis,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119(5) 3260(A) (2006).
8 W. R. Bray, “Relationships of Loudness, Level and Time Structure in Pipe Organ Registration and Design,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(5), 2453(A) (2004).
9 B. Schulte-Fortkamp and K. Genuit, “The acoustical diary as an innovative tool in soundscape evaluation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(5) 2496(A) (2004).
10 B. Schulte-Fortkamp and A. Fiebig, “The daily rhythm of soundscape,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(5), 3238(A) (2006).
11 B. Brooks and B. Schulte-Fortkamp, “Soundscape: an approach to combine physical measures and subjective evalu- ation with respect to community noise assessment,” Proceedings of Internoise, Honolulu, Hawaii (2006).
ronment.
14 Acoustics Today, January 2007