Subjective evaluation of urban street soundscape via sound walk technique Case study: Emam Khomeyni street in Tabriz

Subject Areas : urban design

nasrin mohsen haghighi ¹ , Abbas Ghaffari ² , Ayda Maleki ³

1 - Department of Urban Studies, faculty of architecture and urban studies, Tabriz Islamic art university
2 - Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran.
3 - Faculty of Architecture and urban studies, Tabriz Islamic art university

Received: 2021-11-21 Accepted : 2022-08-31 Published : 2022-10-23

Keywords: urban landscape, sound walk, street, Soundscape,

Abstract :

The soundscape is one of the perceptual dimensions of the urban landscape, the quality of which depends on the pleasantness of the auditory perception of individuals. Different sonic potentials and, in general, the acoustic environment of any urban space is affected by the character and role of the area in the city. The central streets of the town are one of the urban spaces that, in addition to passing the various modes of transportation like light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorcycles, buses, and BRT, include diverse land uses and functions and activities that it is both a transit space and a destination space for pedestrians. The acoustic quality of this space, which is affected by traffic flow and all activities that take place there, has a significant impact on the tendency of people to use the area and its pleasantness. In this study, an attempt was made to evaluate the quality of soundscape perception of pedestrians on Imam Street in Tabriz, which is the central main street of the city that embraces various architectural heritage sites and buildings. The sound walk method was used for the subjective assessment of 30 people (17 men and 13 women) based on the standard requirements of ISO12913-2. After giving the necessary training to the people, they were asked to walk from Fajr square to Shahid Beheshti Square, focusing on listening and evaluating the soundscape of the route at three station points. The results showed that nature-related sounds like bird songs, wind in the trees, and human sounds like conversations, kids playing sounds were assessed as pleasant, and the traffic-related sounds were assessed negatively. These unpleasant sounds were bus passing, motorcycles, horns, and sirens. In terms of overall soundscape quality, the route from Shariati Intersection to Saat square was evaluated as more eventful, memorable, chaotic, vibrant and pleasant. It seems this part's character and spatial organization have a meaningful effect on the pleasantness of the soundscape. The characteristics that differ from the two other factors are openness, different grades of the enclosure, the quality of porosity of the façade, diversity of the old buildings, sight to the heritage sites and buildings like Alishah Citadel, Saat palace and diversity in land use and functions like cinemas, fast foods and restaurants. When it was asked if the soundscape quality of space is according to your expectations, surprisingly, the majority of respondents answered that yes, and it was because the street is one of the main routes of the city, and it is normal to be chaotic and loud, but they admitted that this loudness shouldn't be related to unpleasant sounds. On the hand, results demonstrated that in similar traffic conditions, the factors affecting the perceptual pleasantness of individuals depend on the following factors: diversity of land use and activity (increasing diversity (spatial contrast) Leads to increased pleasantness, increased open and green space including diverse vegetation, reduced background noise level as well as architectural species of heritage value (the presence of valuable architectural heritage increases overall pleasantness).

References:

1. صداقت، زهرا (1396). سنجش غنای حسی فضاهای شهری: معرفی یک چارچوب تحلیلی.صفه، 27 (1)، 73-88.


2. محمد پور، احمد. (1392).روش تحقیق کیفی ضد روش 1. (چاپ دوم). تهران: نشر جامعه شناسان.


3. Axelsson, O., Nilsson, M. E., Hellstrom, B., & Lunden, P. (2014). A field experiment on the impact of sounds from a jet-and-basin fountain on soundscape quality in an urban park. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.005.


4. Aletta, F., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Asdrubali, F., Oberman, T., & Kang, J. (2019). Exploring the compatibility of “Method A” and “Method B” data collection protocols reported in the ISO/TS 12913 2:2018 for urban soundscape via a sound walk. Applied Acoustics, 155, 190-203.


5. Aletta, F., Brambilla, G., Maffei, L., Masullo, M. (2017). Urban Soundscapes: Characterization of a Pedestrian Tourist Route in Sorrento (Italy). Urban Science, 1(4).


6. Adams, M., Cox, t., Moore, G., Croxford, B., Refaee, M., Sharples, S. (2006). Sustainable Soundscapes: Noise Policy and the Urban Experience. Urban Studies,43 (13), 2385–2398. doi:10.1080/00420980600972504


7. Adams, M., and Bruce, N. (2008). Sound walking as a methodology for understanding soundscapes, in Proceeding of the Institute of Acoustics, Reading, UK, 552–558.


8. Adams, M., Moore, G., Cox, T., Croxford, B., Refaee, M., and Sharples, S. (2008). Environmental quality, housing and city residents: A sensory urbanism approach, Qualitative Housing Analysis: An International Perspective. Studies in Qualitative Methodology, 10. (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, United Kingdom), 185–208.


9. Bahalı, S., and Tamer-Bayazıt, N. (2017). Soundscape research on the Gezi Park – Tunel Square route. Applied Acoustics, 116, 260–270.


10. Berglund, B., and Nilsson, M. E. (2006). On a tool for measuring soundscape quality in urban residential areas, Acta Acustica united with Acustica,92, 938–944.


11. Buzova, D., Sanz-Blas, S., Cervera-Taulet, A. (2021). “Sensing” the destination: Development of the destination sensescape index. Tourism Management.


12. Behrendt, F. (2015). Sound walking. (Michael Bull), Routledge.


13. Carles, J. L., Barrio, I. L., & De Lucio, J. V. (1999). Sound influence on landscape values. Landscape and Urban Planning 43, 191–200.


14. Chung, A., and Ming to, W. (2016). Identification of a city's soundscape using soundwalks. Technical Acoustics. 35(6),500-503.


15. De Coensel, B., Vanwetswinkel, S., & Botteldooren, D. (2011). Effects of natural sounds on the perception of road traffic noise. J. Acoustical Society of America.129, EL148–L153. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3567073.


16. Davies WJ, Adams MD, Bruce NS, Cain R, Carlyle A, Cusack P, Hall, D.A., Hume, K.A., Irwin, A., Jennings, P., Marselle, M., Plack. Ch. J., Poxon, J. (2013). Perception of soundscapes: an interdisciplinary approach. Applied Acoustics. 74 (2), 224–31.


17. Hao, Y., Kang, J., & Krijnders, J. D. (2015). Integrated effects of urban morphology on birdsong loudness and visibility of green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 137, 149–162.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.006.


18. Hong, J. Y., & Jeon, J. Y. (2013). Designing sound and visual components for enhancement of urban soundscapes. J. Acoustical Society of America. 134, 2026–2036. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4817924.


19. Hao, Y., Kang, J., & W ̈ortche, H. (2016). Assessment of the masking effects of birdsong on the road traffic noise environment. J. Acoustical Society of America. 140, 978–987.https://doi. org/10.1121/1.4960570.


20. Hong, J. Y., Lam, B., Ong, Z.-T., Ooi, K., Gan, W.-S., Kang, J., Yeong, S., Lee, I., & Tan, S.- T. (2020). The effects of spatial separations between water sound and traffic noise sources on soundscape assessment. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106423.


21. ISO/TS 12913-2:2018. Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 2: Data collection and reporting requirements.


22. Jeon, J. Y., Lee, P. J., You, J., & Kang, J. (2010). Perceptual assessment of quality of urban soundscapes with combined noise sources and water sounds. J. Acoustical Society of America.127, 1357–1366.


23. Jeon, J. Y., Lee, P. J., You, J., & Kang, J. (2012). Acoustical characteristics of water sounds for soundscape enhancement in urban open spaces. J. Acoustical Society of America. 131, 2101–2109. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3681938.


24. Jeon, J. Y., Lee, P. J., Hong, J. Y., and Cabrera, D. (2011). Non-auditory factors affecting urban soundscape evaluation,« J. Acoustical Society of America. 130, 3761–3770.


25. Jeon, J.Y., Hong, J.Y., Lee, P.J. (2013). Soundwalk approach to identify urban soundscapes individually. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.134, 803. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4807801.


26. Liu, J., Kang, J., & Behm, H. (2014). Birdsong as an Element of the Urban Sound Environment: A Case Study Concerning the Area of Warnemunde in Germany. Acta Acust. United with Acust. 100, 458–466.https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.918726.


27. Li, H., & Lau, S. K. (2020). A review of audio-visual interaction on soundscape assessment in urban built environments. Applied Acoustics, 166.


28. Medway, D. (2015). Rethinking place branding and the ‘other’senses. Rethinking place branding. Cham: Springer.


29. Nilsson, M. E., Alvarsson, J., Rådsten-Ekman, M., & Bolin, K. (2010). Auditory masking of wanted and unwanted sounds in a city park. Noise Control Engineering. J. 58, 524. https://doi.org/10.3397/1.3484182. Ong, Z.-T., Lam, B., Hong, J. Y., Ooi, K., & Gan, W.-S. (2018). Selecting birdsongs for auditory masking: a clustering approach based on psychoacoustic parameters. In Proc. 25th Int. Congress of Sound and Vibration. ICSV25 (pp. 1–8).


30. OSGOOD, C.E. (1957). The nature and measurement of meaning. In The Measurement of Meaning(C.E. Osgood, H. Tannenbaum and G.J. Suci, eds.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.


31. Payne, Sarah R., William J. Davies, and Mags D. Adams. (2009). Research into the Practical and Policy Applications of Soundscape Concepts and Techniques in Urban Areas (NANR 200).


32. Porteous, J. D. (1985). Smellscape. Progress in Geography, 9(3), 356–378.


33. Rådsten Ekman, M., Lunden, P., & Nilsson, M. E. (2015). Similarity and pleasantness assessments of water-fountain sounds recorded in urban public spaces. J. Acoustical Society of. Am138, 3043–3052. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4934956.


34. Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. Alfred A. New York: Knopf Inc.


35. Schafer, R. Murray, and Barry Truax. (1978). Handbook for Acoustic Ecology. Canada: Simon Fraser University Publication.


36. Semidor C. (2006). Listening to a city with the soundwalk method. Acta Acustica United Acustica, 92(6), 959–64.


37. Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Jeon, J. Y., and Genuit, K. (2010). Urban design with soundscape—Experiences of a Korean-German team, in Proceedings of International Congress on Acoustics2010, Sydney, Australia.


38. Semidor, C. (2006). Listening to a city with the soundwalk method. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 92, 959–964.


39. Semidor, C., and Venot-Gbedji, F. (2009). Outdoor elements providing urban comfort. in Proceedings of 26th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Quebec City, Canada.


40. Thibaud, JP. (2013). Commented City Walks. Journal of Mobile Culture.


41. Traux, B. (2012). Sound, Listening and Place: The aesthetic dilemma. Cambridge University Press.


42. Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. (2 ed.). London: Sage.


43. Viollon, S., Lavandier, C., and Drake, C. (2002). Influence of visual setting on sound ratings in an urban environment, Applied Acoustics. 63, 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-682X(01)00053-6.


44. Westerkamp, H. (1974). Sound walking, originally published in Sound Heritage, Vol. III (4), Victoria B.C., revised 2001


45. World Health Organization (2018). Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe UN City.


46. You, J., Lee, P. J., and Jeon, J. Y. (2010). Evaluating water sounds to improve the soundscape of urban areas affected by traffic noise, Noise Control Eng. J. 58, 477–483.