An integrated framework on soundscape perception and spatial experience by adapting post-occupancy evaluation methodology

Abstract

The effecting factors of soundscape perception and space experience have a very close relationship. This study aims to synthesize the diversity of soundscape classifications and schemes and unify such factorial variations in order to develop an integrated framework for soundscape perception and spatial experience within a systematic review of recent progress and by adapting post-occupancy evaluation methodology. First, factors under soundscape perception and space experience are reviewed in detail and merged to form conceptual classification models. Six soundscape perception factors are formed as (1) sonic, (2) spatial, (3) temporal, (4) psychological, (5) behavioural and (6) personal. Similarly, five space experience factors are formed as (1) user, (2) usage, (3) architectural design, (4) social context and (5) physical environment. All related items in the literature are presented and the sub-items under each factor are exemplified. Second, factors under the merged conceptual models are integrated by considering occupants’ experience of space regarding their variance in perception of soundscapes through acoustical post-occupancy evaluation. An adapted study design is proposed under indicative, investigative and diagnostic stages of the post-occupancy evaluation by presenting the methods, data types and factorial correlations for each stage.

Keywords

Soundscape perception space experience soundscape factors post-occupancy evaluation soundscape framework

1. Introduction

Sound is a phenomenon that affects our experience in everyday life. It helps us to define our location and our direction. It links with the quality of life within a space.^1–3 Soundscape is a newly emerging research field first presented in the 1970s by Murray Schafer. He claimed that the term soundscape, in other words, acoustic landscape, is a blend of the physical environment regarding acoustical experiential qualities of sound and social environment that is reflected in the user’s perception. Moreover, sound is considered to be a fundamental component of any space, and a perceived soundscape effects users overall experience.⁴ Soundscape research is highly subjective as listening to sound sources is an activity that is arranged and comprehended by the human mind. Therefore, sounds interact and intervene in the connections of listeners and context; yet sounds are also influenced by physical, environmental and social elements.⁵ This means that cross-related factorial approaches are definitely needed, to analyse soundscapes.⁶ On the other hand, soundscape perception is higly subjective and could lead to specific emotional reactions such as, perceiving sounds as pleasent or not.⁷ Therefore, this complementation between sound and space components, identifies the variances in the perception of soundscapes by humans. In addition to the spatial and sonic factors that affect soundscape perception, user-related variables that can show variance by health (auditory problems, viral infections, etc.) and disabilities should also be addressed.

Space can be identified as a conglomeration of shapes, forms, colours and appearances, which is appreciated dominantly by vision. Acoustic designers and researchers suggest that space consists also of sounds, smells, tastes and textures. These modalities operate in conjunction with each other in space experience.⁸ The sense of being somewhere can be created by a soundscape, which compares very favourably with the experience of real places.⁹ Soundscape compositions identify place by listening meaningfully precisely because of its schizophonic nature and its use of environmental sound sources.¹⁰ The contribution of the perception of soundscape with the experience of space can be defined by the key element ‘user’ of the space. In order to evaluate this contribution, specific tools and methods are required. This article aims to explore this challenge.

Within the scope of this research, first, soundscape perception and space experience studies are reviewed in general and previously presented classification models and factors are presented. The unification of such classifications has led to merged categories of both fields. These proposals of merged factors are performed through the detailed review of recent progress in soundscape perception and space experience studies. In the final section, post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is explained and its methodological adaptation with soundscape perception and space experience factors is proposed as a study design. Within the scope of this study, critical literature review on the previously presented classification of soundscape research and space experience is also included. A distinct focus is on the integration of POE tools within soundscape and space experience analysis to propose an initial study methodology that aims to form a basic tool to be followed by future researchers in the fields of indoor soundscape evaluation and design. This study is part of an ongoing research. It presents the theoretical base of the research, which will be followed by case studies as future work.

2. Review on soundscape perception

In order to establish a common language in soundscape studies, sound classification and related criteria should be addressed.¹¹ Accordingly, many studies have been published in the field of soundscape evaluation, soundscape perception and soundscape classifications, and all of these terms include different factors that influence the research scope and objectives in varied dimensions. Therefore, it is important to identify soundscape factors in related multidisciplinary perspectives by involving not only physical attributes but also individual and social aspects.¹² Variables of spatial acoustics and perceptual factors have been evaluated and presented in the literature, which forms a crucial base regarding the psychological approach towards soundscape analysis.¹³ Furthermore, space characteristics, functions and sound sources have been presented as factors that affect the perception of soundscapes within given contexts^14,15 that concentrate more on the environmental aspects. These diverse research fields and findings contribute to the formation of a multidisciplinary soundscape perspective for future researchers.

2.1. Soundscape perception–related factors

In the latest ISO 12913-1:2014¹⁶ international standard, the conceptual framework of a soundscape is structured according to three elements: person, activity and place in time and space. According to these elements, the term ‘soundscape’ is formed and defined as “the acoustic environment perceived or experienced and/or understood by a person or people, in context”¹⁶. In addition, the ‘elements in the perceptual construct of a soundscape’ are also presented by highlighting the integrated aspects, such as context, sound sources, acoustic environment, auditory sensation, perception, responses and outcome.¹⁶

It is highlighted in the literature that soundscape perception studies need to investigate four factors, which are human behaviour, attention, sound information and individual differences.¹⁷ Similarly, a conceptual model of environmental experience was presented based on three concepts, namely person, activity and place, all of which have interrelations with each other and affect the environmental experience.¹⁸ Furthermore, dependent factors of soundscape perception are presented as physical properties of sound, psychological factor, socio-cultural factor and past experience.^19–21 In another study on urban soundscapes, correlations are found between social/demographical factors and physical/behavioural/psychological factors in which the individual effects on sound preference are highlighted.²² In addition, the perception of dominant sound sources that are related with the soundscape experience should also be identified.²³ As can be clearly seen, for soundscape studies, users are the focal point and the evaluation process is structured around it. Therefore, in soundscape evaluation, contextual conditions, attention, knowledge and past experience are all act as effectual factors.²⁴ In addition to such factors, it is emphasized in the literature that the perception of the sonic environment also depends heavily on auditory attention.²⁵

Soundscape perception is complex; it has positive and negative dimensions related to its aspects; therefore, it also depends on expectation, activities, mood and preferences.^26,27 Nevertheless, perception most strongly depends on listener activity and what a person is doing while he is listening. Accordingly, there are three states of listening, the first of which is listening in search, which means that the listener is ready to listen to whatever they are hearing. Second, listening in readiness, which means that the listener is ready to listen but attention is oriented elsewhere. The third state is background listening, which occurs when the listener is engaged and concentrated on other activities. Consequently, a framework is established regarding soundscape perception related to various factors, such as demographical factors, activity, time of listening and space type.²⁸ This framework is supported by Craig, Moure and Knox, who postulate that the variation in perception of soundscape is attributable to the contextual issues that face the listener.⁷

One other important variable that effects soundscape perception is expectation. The expectation of soundscape can be defined as “a strong belief that something will happen or to be the case in the future, or the series of events which are anticipated prior to an experience”.²⁹ To evaluate a sonic environment and how it is perceived, the expectation of users who were in touch with a physical environment should be understood.³⁰ Therefore, an integrative soundscape evaluation approach could be adapted, while analysing the contextual experience of users by concentrating on demographic data (individual characteristics and socio-cultural aspects), space usage (preference, frequency of usage and time spent) and psychological factors (expectation, perception and reaction).³¹

In addition to psychological perspectives discussed above, sound evaluation also depends highly on the activities of the listener in a space.³² Therefore, usage-related factors and detailed analyses should be integrated with the expectation analysis and psychological evaluations. The frequency of usage, time spent in a given space, activity level, spatial opportunities and limitations should all be addressed. The perception of soundscape deals with seven general concepts: context, sound sources, acoustic environment, auditory sensation, interpretation of auditory sensation, responses and results.^33,34

Furthermore, interactions between acoustic and other physical environment factors should also be considered in the overall soundscape evaluation. Indoor environmental parameters such as lighting, thermal conditions, humidity and air quality are all affecting factors within the scope of soundscape studies. Aural–visual interactions have especially been intensively studied. There is a constant interaction between visual and auditory input, which affects the overall soundscape perception.^35,36 The visual and sonic variables work as a pair, which means that they have an inverse relationship. It is reported in a related study that “the attention to the visual form reduced the conscious perception of sound, and vice versa”.²¹ In another study, significant correlations were found between landscape and acoustic satisfaction, between visual and acoustic satisfaction, as well as between view and quietness.¹⁴ Moreover, sounds affect the perception of a landscape and identify the contribution of acoustic and visual input.³⁷

In order to identify a soundscape, acoustic and non-acoustic variables should be considered together.³⁸ Through this perspective, the Juergen Bauer Waterford Institute in 2016 discussed the contribution of the triangulation idea of soundscape that is based on people, context and acoustic environment versus the idea of ‘program – context – idea’ that is proposed by the architectural/urban design process³⁹. From this point of view, there are three premises that should be followed in the soundscape concept: first, the location being defined by the sound; second, a comparison of the location to other locations regarding sound quality ‘sound benchmarks’; and third, how to obtain feedback to help the development of the design concept. Similar to Juergen Bauer Waterford Institute’s scheme, this study presents an important insight into the applicability of an architectural approach in the field of soundscape design, which therefore acts as a base. This study and similar future studies would be beneficial to emphasize the ranging structure of the soundscape field of study and the importance of integrating architectural and design-related fields within this multidisciplinary content.

2.2. Merged model of soundscape perception factors

Through the detailed review of the studies in the literature, it has been noted that there is a difference in the levels of categorisation in the soundscape field according to the aim of the study and to the capability of the authors.⁴⁰ Therefore, in this research, and according to the soundscape-related studies, the scope of soundscape research and soundscape perception categorizations have been reviewed by the integration of different studies and unified to form a merged framework model. In order to establish this model, reviewed classifications are first presented in Table 1, by noting the previously defined soundscape and perception factors of each reviewed study. Second, factors are merged under six basic factors and detailed items are exemplified in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Previous soundscape perception factors presented in the literature and merged factors.

Previous studies related with soundscape and perception	Previously defined factors on soundscape and perception	Merged factors of soundscape perception
Kang, ¹⁴ Zhang and Kang¹⁵	Sound sources
	Space type
	Visual information
	Personal characteristics
Davies et al.¹⁷	Soundscape information
	Human behaviour
	Attention
	Individual differences
Jennings and Cain²⁸	Space
	Time
	Activity
	Demographical factors
Dokmeci Yorukoglu and Kang³¹	Space usage factors (preference, frequency of usage, time spent)
	Psychological factors (expectation, perception, reaction)
	Demographical factors (individual characteristics, socio-cultural aspects)	1. Sonic2. Spatial3. Temporal4. Psychological5. Behavioural6. Personal
Lindborg^26,27	Expectation
	Preferences
	Mood
	Activities
Bild et al.,¹⁹ Raimbault and Dubois,²⁰ Yang and Kang²¹	Physical properties of sound
	Psychological factor
	Socio-cultural factor
	Past experience
Herranz-Pascual et al.,³³ Kang and Schulte-Fortkamp³⁴	Sound sources
	Acoustic environment
	Auditory sensation
	Interpretation of auditory sensation
	Responses
	Results
	Context
Marry and Defrance²⁵	Auditory attention
Schulte-Fortkamp²⁴	Contextual conditions
	Attention
	Knowledge
	Past experience

Figure 1.

Merged and detailed factors of soundscape perception to be tested by acoustical post-occupancy evaluation.

3. Review on space experience

The combination of acoustic and visual images in the same space influences the perception of soundscape and space experience;^21,41,42 yet through the use of all senses, spatial awareness is created and an overall space experience is built. Heidegger inspired a particular approach to understanding the social processes of space construction. He focuses our attention on the way in which places ‘are constructed in our memories’ and are affections through repeated encounters and complex associations. He emphasized how place experiences have time-dimensions and qualified by memories.⁴³ The perception and emotional responses to space are based on multi-sensory inputs embodied through visual and auditory data among the other interacting senses, in order to establish the sense of space.⁴⁴ Spatial experience can be distinguished by a compound of senses and they are thought to work in conjunction to create an experience.^8,9,45

In spite of the fact that sense of place is to some extent an inalienable property of the environment, individuals encounter this sense through physical contact with the environment by occupying it. Moreover, from this perspective, sense of space portrays the significant features of the vicinity that people can sense through a personal ordeal of a space.⁸ Most studies have been concerned with urban experience based on formal and structural measures of the visual image, while the sonic environment qualities play a secondary role in the experience of urban spaces. Visual sense is different from hearing sense such that visual attention focuses on an object which is influenced by the distance between the observer and the object. On the other hand, the hearing sense covers approximately 360° in all directions. Consequently, the sonic environment affects us more directly than other factors of the space experience.³⁵ Spatial capacity becomes spatial knowledge when developments and changes occur in the perceived area. This means that strolling through space creates the ability to acquire information from different events, such as looking at different images and way-finding.⁴⁵ Moreover, there is a combination between soundscape and space components such that any changes on space will also make changes in the soundscape perception. These changes can be measured by investigating the experience of the occupants in a space.²⁸

3.1. Space experience–related factors

Space experience is multi-sensory, yet there is still a considerable bias towards a visually centered analysis approach. This is related to the widespread acceptance of vision as the primary sense.⁸ The assessment of space depends on aesthetics, global comfort and the functionality of space,⁴⁶ which are mostly concentrating on the overall usage and social importance of space. Moreover, it is presented that the overall experience of space is achieved through the integration of different social and psychological factors such as place satisfaction, previous experience, familiarity, expectation, space identity and information.¹⁸ Therefore, in order to improve public spaces, the environmental variables integrated with the perception and expectation of space should be investigated⁴⁷ in combination with the social perspectives.

Furthermore, previously presented spatial experience factors, on social aspects (gender, age, past experience, etc.), space design aspects (architectural plan, furniture, materials, etc.), environmental aspects (temperature, noise, light, etc.) and space complexity aspects (triangulation points, shapes, colours, configurations, etc.) are crucial regarding the architectural evaluation perspective and user.⁴⁸ Within these four factors, temporal integration of complexity factor is especially highlighted. It is found that the perceived level of complexity decreases gradually with an increased time of spatial perception.⁴⁸ In addition to visually dominated physical environment factors, the sonic environment and related aspects are found to be effective on individuals’ experience of places.⁴⁹

Spatial experience and time are largely subconscious. Functioning within a certian time directly effects the sense of place for the user and can be seen as a resolution of tension.⁴⁵ Previous studies have considered the time spent as an essential variable, and it has been presumed that the length of time of stay directly affects the space experience.⁵⁰ In another comparative study, it was observed that time spent by users in the food court of a shopping centre demonstrated a huge positive correlation between noise annoyance and time spent.⁵¹ These studies show that the time spent is an essential element which influences user experience and soundscape perception.³⁰

In addition to the user and usage-oriented classifications, the basic elements of architecture are also presented in the literature for architectural design, including light, colour, temperature, ventilation, sound, smell, texture and touch, scale and time.⁵² Furthermore, the architectural design approach is explained in detail with basic aspects, such as plane and volume, form, space, organization, circulation, proportion and scale, and ordering principle.⁵³ Functional (purpose, services), spatial (formal organization, spatial relationships, circulation patterns, shapes and dimensions) and indoor environmental (air quality, lighting quality, acoustic quality, crowd level) factors under built entity variables of an indoor soundscape framework also highlight the importance of architectural evaluation in user-oriented studies.³¹ These exemplified variables and factors together constitute the formulation of an architectural base and are therefore integrated in any analysis regarding space and spatial experiences.

3.2. Merged model of space experience factors

Accordingly with the previous studies on spatial experience, this study has presented the related merged factors chart. Therefore, in this research, space experience categorisations have been reviewed from different studies and unified to form a framework model. In order to do so, related classifications are first presented in Table 2 and the factors of soundscape perception are merged, as presented in Figure 2. The factors that have similar meanings relating to semantics or to its sub-factors were merged together. These sub-categories can help researchers to acquire more accurate results in evaluating the experience of space through the occupant’s point of view and help to facilitate a proper and efficient evaluation tool.

Table 2.

Previous space experience factors presented in the literature and merged factors.

Previous studies related to space and experience	Previously defined factors on space and experience	Merged factors of space experience
Hidayetoglu et al.⁴⁸	Environmental factors (temperature, noise, light)
	Space design factors (architectural plan, furniture, materials)
	Social factors (gender, age, past experience)
	Spatial complexity (triangulation points, shapes, colours, configurations)
Herranz-Pascual et al.¹⁸	Place satisfaction
	Previous experience
	Familiarity
	Expectation
	Space identity
	Information
Raimbault et al.⁴⁶	Aesthetics
	Global comfort
	Functionality of space
Aspuru et al.⁴⁷	Perception
Aspuru et al.⁴⁷	Expectation
Adams et al.⁴⁹	Sonic environment
Tuan et al.,⁴⁵ Kang et al.,⁵⁰ Dökmeci and Yılmazer⁵¹	Time	1.User2.Usage3.Architectural design4.Social context5. Physical environment
Unwin⁵²	Light
	Colour
	Temperature
	Ventilation
	Sound
	Smell
	Texture and touch
	Scale
	Time
Ching⁵³	Plane and volume
	Form
	Space
	Organisation
	Circulation
	Proportion and scale
	Ordering principle
Dokmeci Yorukoglu and Kang³¹	Functional factors (purpose, services)
	Spatial factors (formal organization, spatial relationships, circulation patterns, shapes and dimensions)
	Indoor environmental factors (air quality, lighting quality, acoustic quality, crowd level)

Figure 2.

Merged and detailed factors of the space experience to be tested by acoustical post-occupancy evaluation.

4. Adapting POE to the soundscape research framework

Soundscape perception and spatial experience studies are closely related to user pleasantness and satisfaction, whereas the POE process is more concerned with user satisfaction and is intended to determine their qualitative feedback according to their experience with the sonic environment in space, in negative or positive aspects through diverse methods of data collection.⁵⁴ POE is normally used to assess building performance by considering a wide range of performance criteria. In order to evaluate the relationship between soundscape perception and an overall spatial experience, it is important to establish an integrated framework that concentrates on data collection and factorial evaluation.

In this study, a POE tool is proposed to construct a relationship between soundscape perception and spatial experience. Hence, the key element between POE and space characteristics is the user. Thereby, user decides whether a space and its components are suitable within the given context or not. In the early stages of design or spatial planning and programming, soundscaping should be included as a crucial design aspect. Therefore, in this study, soundscape perception and related factors are integrated with space experience. This formulates the acoustical post-occupancy study proposal.

As presented in Figure 3, an integration framework is proposed. This framework concentrates on the two different aspects mentioned in this study, which are soundscape perception and space experience. It is based on applying a proper tool to evaluate the relationship between the two concepts, namely perception and experience, in order to assess the relationship regarding the variation of physical elements and social differences that are considered under each variable. The crucial point in this framework is how to categorise the factors and how to collect data from the user and the environment in order to form an integrated evaluation that would feed back into future design projects.

Figure 3.

Integrated conceptual framework model of acoustical POE.

Besides investigating space and usage characteristics, POE also deals with occupant behaviours and the needs of occupants in order to reveal results of building performance and the consequences of past design decisions.⁵⁵ The term acoustic POE was first used to evaluate buildings in tropical climates;⁵⁶ however, the approach has not been adapted to soundscape evaluation and it is used as a case-specific evaluation tool. Therefore, this study aims to propose a more applicable methodological design that could lead to an archive of comparable studies in the future.

The data collection process that is structured within POE is phased under three stages. These three stages are indicative, investigative and diagnostic, as presented in Figure 4. It is proposed that the indicative stage, which includes observations and measurements, would be the first phase to form the base of the study. The investigative stage, which includes interviews and architectural surveying, will follow as the second phase, where the occupants could be involved more through interactive communication in interviews. Architectural surveying would also act as a key method to collect reliable data on the architectural characteristics of spaces. These two phases are expected to lead to initial identifications on soundscape perception and space experience factors. The later stage on diagnostics includes questionnaires and soundwalks, which would lead to a final and more structured evaluation.

Figure 4.

Acoustical POE phases and integrated methods for data collection.

In the design of these three phases, each phase builds upon one another by conveying information to the next phase from the collected data of the previous phase. Therefore, it is proposed that the data collected from the indicative phase will be evaluated and the information from the analysed data will be conveyed to the development of the interview content. Similarly, data collected from the interviews will be interpreted for the design of the questionnaires in the diagnostic stage.

This proposed study design as presented in Table 3 is based on the occupant’s judgement of their surrounding environment and is aimed to test the proposed merged factors classified under soundscape perception and space experience. In the first indicative stage, an observation method is proposed to collect data on spatial, behavioural and usage-related factors. In addition, measurements on sonic characteristics and the physical environment are proposed to identify environmental conditions. In the second investigative stage, data on psychological and temporal factors in addition to user and social context–related factors are collected by means of interviews. Architectural surveying is also one major part of this stage to collect data on spatial factors and architectural design. In the final third phase of the diagnostic stage, overall evaluation of the previously mentioned factors are all integrated. Questionnaires and soundwalks are proposed to collect data, in order to understand the specific relationship between soundscape perception and space experience factors. It is important to highlight that any data collected from each phase should be used to structure the next phase so that each phase could be linked with each other and therefore feed one another.

Table 3.

Proposed study design to test merged factors of soundscape perception and space experience.

Phase	Poe stage	Method	Type of data	Evaluated soundscape perception factor	Evaluated space experience factor
1	Indicative	Observation	Qualitative	Spatial	Usage
		Observation	Qualitative	Behavioural	Usage
		Measurement	Quantitative	Sonic	Physical environment
Collected data to be used in structuring the second phase
2	Investigative	Interview	Qualitative	Psychological	User
		Interview	Qualitative	Temporal	Social context
		Architectural survey	Quantitative	Spatial	Architectural design
Collected data to be used in structuring the third phase
3	Diagnostic	Soundwalk	Qualitative	All soundscape perception and space experience factors are integrated for further statistical analysis
3	Diagnostic	Questionnaire	Quantitative

5. Conclusion

There is an urgent demand to find a universal tool to identify the factors that influence the perception of soundscapes and space experience. It has been reviewed that previous studies on soundscapes and space experience have developed varied classifications and have used different criteria. This study presented the differences in the semantic and linguistic usage in these previous studies. Related studies on soundscape perception have been reviewed, and merged factors are proposed. For soundscape perception analysis, six merged factors are proposed:

Sonic;

Spatial;

Temporal;

Psychological;

Behavioural;

Personal.

In addition, studies on space experience are also reviewed and five merged factors are proposed:

User;

Usage;

Architectural design;

Social context;

Physical environment.

The specific highlighted conclusion of this study is the integration of POE with a soundscape approach. Therefore, the POE stages are re-developed through applicable data collection methods and specific soundscape methods within each phase, including observations, measurements, interviews, architectural surveying, questionnaires and soundwalks. In addition, collected data types and evaluated factors are specified for each proposed method and structured under the proposed acoustical POE phases. The proposed study design is specifically structured to be followed in the indoor soundscape and space experience research fields.

The adapted POE methodology would be beneficial especially for indoor soundscape researchers who would aim to use the proposed study design in case evaluation studies. In addition, architects, interior architects and space designers would benefit from this approach by integrating acoustical POE to traditional POE evaluations that could feed the planning, programming and designing phases of future projects.

An initial conceptual framework on merged factors of soundscape perception and space experience, as well as a proposed acoustical POE study design are presented in this article. This study is an ongoing research in which future work will include the application of the acoustical POE study design through the identified methods by following the differentiated phases in order to test the presented merged factors classified under soundscape perception and space experience.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Papatya Nur Dokmeci Yorukoglu

References

Bernat

. Analysis of social conflicts in Poland’s soundscape as a challenge to socio-acoustics. Arch Acoust 2016; 41(3): 415–426.

Bogusz

Skrodzka

Hojan

. Sounds and vibrations necessary for library of vibroacoustic events addressed to visually impaired persons – questionnaire results. Pol J Environ Stud 2011; 20(6): 1395–1401.

Hojan

Jakubowski

Talukder

. A new method of teaching spatial orientation to the blind. Acta Phys Pol A 2012; 121(1A): A5–A8.

Ismail

. Sound preferences of the dense urban environment: soundscape of Cairo. Front Archit Res 2014; 3(1): 55–68.

Truax

. Soundscape, acoustic communication and environmental sound composition. Contemp Music Rev 1996; 15(1–2): 49–65.

Raimbault

Bérengier

Dubois

. Common factors in the identification of urban soundscapes (pilot studies in two French cities: Lyon and Nantes). In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th international conference on acoustics (ICA), 2–7 September 2001, Rome.

Craig

Moore

Knox

. Experience sampling: assessing urban soundscapes using in-situ participatory methods. Appl Acoust 2017; 117: 227–235.

Kinayoglu

. The role of sound in making of a sense of place in real, virtual and augmented environments. Berkeley, University of California Press, 2009.

Turner

McGregor

Turner

. Evaluating soundscapes as a means of creating a sense of place. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on auditory display, 6–9 July 2003, Boston, MA.

10.

Westerkamp

. Soundscape composition: linking inner and outer worlds. Soundscape Newsletter, 19–26 November 1999, https://www.sfu.ca/~westerka/writings%20page/articles%20pages/soundscapecomp.html

11.

Torija

Ruiz

Ramos-Ridao

. A tool for urban soundscape evaluation applying support vector machines for developing a soundscape classification model. Sci Total Environ 2014; 482: 440–451.

12.

Kang

Aletta

Gjestland

. Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment. Build Environ 2016; 108: 284–294.

13.

Berglund

Eriksen

Nilsson

. Perceptual characterization of soundscapes in residential areas. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th international conference on acoustics (ICA), 2–7 September 2001, Rome.

14.

Kang

. From understanding to designing soundscapes. Front Archit Civ Eng China 2010; 4(4): 403–417.

15.

Zhang

Kang

. Towards the evaluation, description, and creation of soundscapes in urban open spaces. Environ Plann B 2007; 34(1): 68–86.

16.

ISO 12913-1:2014. Acoustics – soundscape – part 1: definition and conceptual framework.

17.

Davies

Adams

Bruce

. Perception of soundscapes: an interdisciplinary approach. Appl Acoust 2013; 74(2): 224–231.

18.

Herranz-Pascual

Aspuru

García

. Proposed conceptual model of environmental experience as framework to study the soundscape. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Congress on Noise Control Engineering 2010 (INTER-NOISE 2010), Lisbon, 13–16 June 2010, pp. 2904–2912.

19.

Bild

Coler

Pfeffer

. Considering sound in planning and designing public spaces: a review of theory and applications and a proposed framework for integrating research and practice. J Plan Lit 2016; 31(4): 419–434.

20.

Raimbault

Dubois

. Urban soundscapes: experiences and knowledge. Cities 2005; 22(5): 339–350.

21.

Yang

Kang

. Soundscape and sound preferences in urban squares: a case study in Sheffield. J Urban Des 2005; 10(1): 61–80.

22.

Hall

Irwin

Edmondson-Jones

. An exploratory evaluation of perceptual, psychoacoustic and acoustical properties of urban soundscapes. Appl Acoust 2013; 74(2): 248–254.

23.

Kang

. Factors influencing the sound preference in urban open spaces. Appl Acoust 2010; 71(7): 622–633.

24.

Schulte-Fortkamp

. The quality of acoustic environments and the meaning of soundscapes. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th international conference on acoustics (ICA), 2-7 September 2001, Rome.

25.

Marry

Defrance

. Analysis of the perception and representation of sonic public spaces through on site survey, acoustic indicators and in-depth interviews. Appl Acoust 2013; 74(2): 282–292.

26.

Lindborg

. Physiological measures regress onto acoustic and perceptual features of soundscapes. In: Paper presented at the 3rd international conference on music and emotion, Jyväskylä, 11–15 June 2013.

27.

Lindborg

. Psychoacoustic, physical, and perceptual features of restaurants: a field survey in Singapore. Appl Acoust 2015; 92: 47–60.

28.

Jennings

Cain

. A framework for improving urban soundscapes. Appl Acoust 2013; 74(2): 293–299.

29.

Bruce

Davies

. The effects of expectation on the perception of soundscapes. Appl Acoust 2014; 85: 1–11.

30.

Dokmeci

. New framework on indoor soundscaping through built entity, sound environment, and contextual experience. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2013.

31.

Dokmeci Yorukoglu

Kang

. Analysing sound environment and architectural characteristics of libraries through indoor soundscape framework. Arch Acoust 2016; 41(2): 203–212.

32.

Lindborg

. A taxonomy of sound sources in restaurants. Appl Acoust 2016; 110: 297–310.

33.

Herranz-Pascual

García

Aspuru

. Progress in the understanding of soundscape: objective variables and objectifiable criteria that predict acoustic comfort in urban places. Noise Mapp 2016; 3(1): 247–263.

34.

Kang

Schulte-Fortkamp

. Soundscape and the Built Environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016.

35.

McGurk

MacDonald

. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976; 264: 746–748.

36.

Offenhuber

Auinger

. Urban Configuration and the Soundscape. Bonndorf: stadtmusik, 2013.

37.

Giuliani

Scopelliti

Capirci

. Deaf people and the cognition of environmental sounds. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th international conference on acoustics (ICA), 2–7 September 2001, Rome.

38.

Herranz-Pascual

García

Diez

. Analysis of field data to describe the effect of context (acoustic and non-acoustic factors) on urban soundscapes. Appl Sci 2017; 7(2): 173.

39.

Bauer

. The new ISO-standard on ‘soundscape’-maximizing the benefit for the architectural design process. In: Proceedings of 45th international congress and exposition on noise control engineering, 21–24 August 2016, Hamburg.

40.

Niessen

Cance

Dubois

. Categories for soundscape: toward a hybrid classification. In: Paper presented at the inter-noise and noise-con congress and conference proceedings, 13–16 June 2010, Lisbon, Portugal.

41.

Gozalo

Carmona

Morillas

. Relationship between objective acoustic indices and subjective assessments for the quality of soundscapes. Appl Acoust 2015; 97: 1–10.

42.

Solomon

. Thesis Book submitted for Bachelor of Architecture at Syracuse University. Building the soundscape in the age of visual distraction, 2012.

43.

Harvey

. Justice, nature and the geography of difference, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1996.

44.

Dumyahn

Pijanowski

. Soundscape conservation. Landscape Eco 2011; 26(9): 1327.

45.

Tuan

. Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

46.

Raimbault

Lavandier

Bérengier

. Ambient sound assessment of urban environments: field studies in two French cities. Appl Acoust 2003; 64(12): 1241–1256.

47.

Aspuru

Fernandez

García

. Soundscape within the strategy of Bilbao city to improve quality of public spaces. In: Proceedings of the NAG-DAGA, Merano, 18–21 March.

48.

Hidayetoglu

Yildirim

Cagatay

. The effects of training and spatial experience on the perception of the interior of buildings with a high level of complexity. Sci Res Essays 2010; 5(5): 428–439.

49.

Adams

Davies

Bruce

. Soundscapes: an urban planning process map. In: Proceedings of the Inter Noise, Ottawa, KS, Canada, 23–26 August 2009.

50.

Kang

Chung

. Acoustic comfort, quality and atmospherein ‘non-acoustic’ spaces: case studies in railway stations and open plan offices. In: Proceedings of the 13th international congress on sound and vibration, Vienna, 2–6 July 2006.

51.

Dökmeci

Yılmazer

. Relationships between measured levels and subjective ratings: a case study of the food-court area in CEPA shopping center, Ankara. Build Acoust 2012; 19(1): 57–74.

52.

Unwin

. Analysing architecture. London: Routlegde, 2009.

53.

Ching

. Architecture: form, space and order. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.

54.

Hassanain

. Post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of student housing facilities. Architect Eng Des Manag 2007; 3(4): 249–256.

55.

Preiser

Rabinowitz

White

. Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1988.

56.

Ribeiro

Kortchmar

Slama

. Case study of building diagnostics: acoustic post-occupancy evaluation of buildings in tropical climates. Build Acoust 2001; 8(3): 212–221.