Page 36 - Winter2014

Figure 3 : Traffic noise sources, Broadway, New York City (2012)
Similarly, in music composition and sound recording, the introduction of intense elements of volume or dissonance at the right moment can evoke the desired emotional response of the audience.
Needs – What must soundscape researchers and theorists do going forward?
Beside the involvement of different disciplines, it is important to define areas of future research that will build the platform for further development. These include the areas of econom- ics, noise policy-standards, and combined effects. Also vital is research into common protocols, cross cultural studies, educa- tion about soundscape, combined measurement procedures, the perception of the character of sounds, and cross cultural questionnaires. Moreover, the importance of survey site selec- tion has to be emphasized, along with multi-sectorial environ- mental health impact assessment, the perspective on sustain- able development environmental zoning, citizen involvement, and preservation of quiet areas.
This rather long list of vital influences on understanding the complete soundscape may seem daunting. However, these
are all within the reach of today’s scope of knowledge. These just need the continued attention of researchers to become effective tools for soundscape analysis. The benefit of develop- ing these tools is the realization of high quality sonic environ- ments that meet the needs and desires of their occupants.
As we have learned from the Community Noise perspective, it is important to distinguish the totality of soundscape from
the limited idea of a quiet zone. Consideration of “sensitive areas” and the design of “supportive environments” require new insights into the existing annoyance data and new integrative research strategies. There is a common consensus about the necessity of additional parameters beside the A- weighted sound pressure level which exists in an environment. Psychoacoustic parameters contribute immensely to efforts to measure and assess environmental sound more properly. Us- ing psychoacoustic parameters, mainly based on standardized procedures of measurement and analysis, it will be possible
to explain contributors of annoyance caused by environmen- tal noise. As for the evaluation procedure, it is needed to integrate contextual and subjective variables, to ensure that soundscape is not just a matter of noise level reduction but also accounts for people’s concerns and well-being.
Among qualitative methods there is a heterogeneous ‘research landscape’ which embodies different forms of observation, in- terviewing techniques with low level of standardization (such as open ended, unstructured interviews, partially or semi- structured interviews, guided or narrative interviews), and the collection of documents or archival data. Consequently, a host of methods are used, which rest on various theoretical and assumptions and methodological positions.
Yet, in spite of their differences, those approaches all share common ground, as advocates of the ‘interpretive paradigm’ agree on certain ideas about the nature of social reality, which is shaped by social meaning. So, for an environment’s inhab- itants, their perceived social reality is always a ‘meaningful’ reality. That is, the inhabitant thinks, consciously or sub- consciously, “What does this feature of the environment mean to me?” A particular feature could have great impact, or none at all, on an individual. Similarities and differences in percep- tion of the social reality among individuals may merge into a picture of consensus for a collective group of individuals.
Due to the importance of meaning to the lives of these inhab- itants, their social reality refers to a context of action which they observe in other people, and about which they may form judgments. Social reality always depends on a certain point
34 | Acoustics Today | Winter 2014