The Sonic Identity Model: one interdisciplinary approach for qualitative urban soundscape analysis, management and design

Sophie Gleeson 1 Arup Sky Park, 1 Melbourne Quarter, 699 Collins St, Docklands VIC 3008

ABSTRACT Urban soundscapes are predominantly understood through the use of quantitative environmental noise and acoustic design approaches. These approaches, while valuable, do not capture the subjective qualities of sonic environments as experienced by its users. The Sonic Identity Model, developed by Pascal Amphoux of the Centre for Research on Sonic Space and Urban Environment (CRESSON), offers one interdisciplinary approach for qualitative urban soundscape analysis, management and design. In this paper I provide an overview of the Model, and examine its demonstrated usefulness through a review of practitioner applications and my contemporary adaptation and application of the Model in a pilot study. I position the Model as a valuable framework for urban soundscape practice that comprises a toolkit of methods and conceptual tools that practitioners may draw from, adapt and apply in collaboration with established environmental noise and soundscape approaches for detailed urban soundscape analysis and description.

1. INTRODUCTION In the fields of acoustics and environmental noise, understanding is dominated by a signal- focused perspective that considers sound as a transfer of energy or signal (1, p. 4-5). This understanding informs criteria and consequently practice, shaping the ways in which we assess, manage and design sound in the built environment (2). From this signal-focused perspective, environmental sound is predominantly understood through its physical properties and behaviour. Physical parameters such as level, frequency and temporal dimensions are measured, analysed and assessed to understand environmental sound, and listener perceptions of it (2). Sound control and mitigation techniques are used to manage these parameters and its measurable impact on listeners. This approach is rigorous and very valuable for working with environmental sound, and is well established as the dominant global approach for environmental noise management. However, sound quality cannot be apprehended exclusively through objectivity and physical measurement (2, 3, 4). The urban sonic environment is complex and multidimensional and is understood not only through its physical qualities, but also through its reception — through the ways in which we perceive, process, value and remember sounds, and through how we choose to listen, or not listen.

These social, cultural and perceptual dimensions are the focus of soundscape approaches, largely developed through the ecological and musicological work of the World Soundscape Project and the phenomenological work CRESSON ( le Centre de Recherche sur l’Espace Sonore et

sophie.gleeson@arup.com 1

of 1 10

inter.noise 21-24 AUGUST SCOTTISH EVENT CAMPUS. ? O? ? GLASGOW

l’environnement urbain , or the Centre for Research on Sonic Space and Urban Environment). Soundscape approaches offer valuable alternative ways for understanding and working with environmental sound. However, applying a soundscape perspective, particularly in environmental noise settings, is challenging. Soundscape theories and approaches are often complex and difficult to apply in practice (5, 6 p. 23). Listener perception is subjective and individual and consequently soundscape approaches often do not result in shared or quantifiable outcomes. Qualitative, subjective soundscape approaches are generally held to be in direct conflict with formalised acoustic design (6 p. 23). Further, each field approaches sound from a different perspective, and the vocabulary used to discuss sound varies from discipline to discipline (2 p. 3). This communication challenge results in an inability to understand methods and theories outside of a practitioner’s own field and limits the applicability of soundscape tools in acoustic settings, and vice versa.

Despite these differences and challenges, environmental noise and soundscape approaches are more complementary than contrasting (7). Practitioners would benefit from employing soundscape tools in collaboration with environmental noise approaches to understand environmental sound from an interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional perspective. Amongst the various soundscape theories and tools available is a well-developed but little used methodology that aims to provide a pathway to do this: the Sonic Identity Model. The Sonic Identity Model offers one alternative approach for understanding urban sonic environments from a listener-focused and always contextualised perspective. In this paper I present a high-level overview of the Model and its uses. I draw upon the work undertaken and presented in my Masters research dissertation, which offers a comprehensive explanation of the methodology and its use in research and practice (8).

2. THE SONIC IDENTITY MODEL The Sonic Identity methodology, described was developed by researcher, geographer and architect Pascal Amphoux of CRESSON. The Model was first published in French in 1993 and interpreted and presented in English in 2002 by Björn Hellström. The Sonic Identity Model presents a detailed methodology for research teams studying the subjective qualities of a city’s sonic environment as remembered, perceived and evaluated by its inhabitants. The Model does not seek to “describe the soundscape by itself but rather through the relationships that are formed with it” (9 p. 423). The methodology offers practitioners a guiding framework for soundscape analysis and description, and an “action plan” for soundscape management and design. Practitioners may draw from, scale, adapt and augment the Model according to their needs and use it as a complementary tool alongside other methods and approaches, such as those from acoustics (10, 11).

The Model takes a multi-faceted perspective towards understanding environmental sound, embracing the physical qualities of the sonic environment as well as its architectural, social, cultural and perceptual dimensions (11, 12). This perspective is framed and described through three levels or orders — Environment, Milieu and Landscape — and formalised as the EMP Model. The Environment order encompasses “objective, measurable and controllable” physical sound qualities and does not consider listener experience (13 p. 37). The Milieu order relates to subjective listener values and ideals towards sonic environments, shaped by people’s social practices, habits and comfort (11). The Landscape order encompasses inter-subjective aesthetic, affective and symbolic sound qualities (12). This EMP perspective necessitates different methods and conceptual tools. The Sonic Identity Model encompasses three methods for documenting listener perceptions: Sonic Mind Maps, Phono-reputable Inquiries and Re-activated Listening Interviews. The results from these methods are analysed through four interrelated schematic conceptual tools: the CVS Model, Sonic Composition tool, Sonic Effect notion, and the Repertoire of Qualitative Criteria (“sonic composition” is used to describe Amphoux’s sound categorisation tool not formalised by name). Each conceptual tool is underpinned by a ternary logic, comprising three dimensions or categories

of 2 10

for understanding sonic environments that relate to the three E-M-P orders and together forming what Hellström describes as a “repertoire of concepts that have family resemblance” (11 p. 60).

The Model seeks to approach the “sonic identity” of a city, a notion defined by Amphoux as the sonic characteristics common to a place, a neighbourhood, or a city, ordinary and incarnated in everyday life (10). These sounds are what make it possible to recognise and identify an environment, and differentiate it from another (10). He states the notion is approachable but “by principle unattainable” (10 p. 6).

2.1. The Sonic Identity Model as a tool for soundscape analysis and description

The Model’s methods and tools are structured through three approaches which practitioners may follow, step by step. However, these approaches are not discrete or linear. The Model is underpinned by an iterative “recurrent” structure that guides practitioners to visit and revisit documentation results through the lens of each conceptual tool. In doing so, researchers progressively conform and quantify individual subjective responses, distinguish shared qualities and characteristics, and approach an intersubjective or “shared objective ” understanding of a place.

Approach one draws on the memory of participants to identify places for further study and distinguish their sonic qualities as they are remembered. This is done by developing Sonic Mind Maps of the city with participants, who each draw a map of the city with comments . Researchers then conduct Phono-reputable Inquiries — reflexive survey sessions with participants. Participants review Sonic Mind Maps, reflect on sonic qualities in each place and propose criteria that contribute to experiences of well-being. Researchers then analyse all results through the CVS Model to understand to what degree each environment is Known (representative of the city, known to all), Lived (expressed through people’s practices and experiences), and Sensed (symbolic, expressing a type of place or experience, not dependent on individual experience or concrete location) (6, 13).

Approach two focuses on listener perceptions. Re-analysing the results from Approach One, researchers use the Sonic Composition tool to subdivide described sounds into three orders (Background, Ambience, Signal) by considering listening behaviour and spatial and temporal aspects as described by participants. The Background order refers to often continuous and/or durational sounds we do not pay attention to. Ambience includes sounds that give a place its distinctive character, often moving and/or rhythmic. Sonic Signals grab your attention and are always discontinuous (11). Sonic Composition analysis results guide the production of audio recordings. These recordings are used as listening materials in Re-Activated Listening Interviews, where participants react to and describe the situations heard, their associations and interpretations of the sounds, and their positive and negative views towards the segments.

Approach three guides researchers to make a final assessment of each place using two schematic conceptual tools: Sonic Effects and the Repertoire of Qualitative Criteria. The Sonic Effect notion is CRESSON’s most well-known research output, and was developed independently to the Sonic Identity methodology (22). The English repertoire of Sonic Effects is a lexicon of some 83 terms for describing a sound in its totality, “from its input to its physical, social and perceptual impact in urban space” (6 p. 100). Sonic Effects express the relations between listeners, sound, and the environment, and the effect of sound on listeners (15). The Repertoire of Qualitative Criteria offers a secondary extensive soundscape vocabulary of 75 terms for analysing the sonic environment and the way in which it is heard and understood by inhabitants (13). Through the identification of Qualitative Criteria, practitioners frame each soundscape under investigation through its Environment, Milieu and Landscape orders. In approach three, researchers analyse and identify Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria, compile all analysis results into a Sonic Identity Chart, and describe each environment in terms of space, time, semantic and/or cultural aspects, and sounds.

of 3 10

2.2. The Sonic Identity Model as a tool for soundscape management and design

Analysis results from Model application are then intended to be used to support soundscape management and design. Amphoux proposes a framework for joint interdisciplinary management of environmental sound, framed through the EMP Model logic. The Environmental approach focuses on protecting environments from noise pollution by controlling sound’s physical characteristics, propagation and emission through use of environmental noise management techniques. The Milieu level focuses on strengthening the social dimension by managing and regulating the way environments are used with consideration to social practices, activities and listener comfort. The Landscape level focuses on developing listener awareness, designing soundscape elements and preserving the aesthetic and symbolic sounds that contribute to a place’s sonic identity (10, 12).

3. PRACTITIONER APPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL

Over the past 29 years, the Sonic Identity Model has received limited attention. In this review I examine seven case studies that report on the Model’s use, predominantly as a tool for soundscape analysis and description. The Model was applied in its entirety only once by David Paquette in his study of the acoustic community of the neighbourhood Commercial Drive in Vancouver (13). The Model was partially applied in López Barrio & Carles’ study of Madrid (16); Hellström’s PhD project investigating Klara, Stockholm (6); Korkontzila, Karapostoli, Tsaligopoulos & Matsinos study of Thessaloniki, Greece (17); Vogiatzis & Remy’s study of the neighbourhood Herakleion in Crete Island, Greece (18), and the cities of Volos and Larissa in Greece (9); and Karapostoli & Votsi’s study of Thessaloniki, Greece (19). Vogiatzis & Remy’s work forms two standalone case studies where practitioners have used the Model as a descriptive and operative tool.

Across each case study, practitioners have scaled and applied the Model in part or in full to suit project needs, adapting and applying methods and concepts selectively, as outlined in the table below, for soundscape analysis and description.

Sonic Mind

Phono- reputable

Re-activated

Sonic Composition

Repertoire of

CVS Model

Sonic Effects

Case Studies

Listening Interviews

Qualitative

Map

Inquiry

tool

Criteria Paquette (13) * ✖ ︎ * ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

López Barrio & Carles (16) ✖︎ ✖︎ ✖︎

Hellström (6) ** ✖︎ ** ** ✖︎ **

Vogiatzis & Remy (9) * ✖︎ *

Vogiatzis & Remy (18) * ✖︎ *

Karapostoli & Votsi (19) ✖︎ ✖︎ ✖︎

Korkontzila et al. (19) ✖︎ ✖︎ ✖︎

* adapted for in situ use

** partially applied

Table 1: practitioner applications of the Model’s methods and concepts

of 4 10

Practitioners have adapted and applied these select methods and concepts in collaboration with other qualitative and quantitative methods and approaches, including: soundscape methods, including sound counts (13, 17), and soundwalks, listening walks and a sound diary (13); soundscape concepts, including soundmarks (9, 13, 18, 19), foreground-background, hifi and lofi (19); Barry Truax’s Acoustic Communication model (13); Bernie Krause’s sound categorisation system (17, 19); acoustic measurements (9, 13, 17, 18, 19); and strategic noise maps, developed from acoustic measurements and predictive 3D noise modelling (9, 18).

The Model has been applied in collaboration with these approaches to investigate a range of topics, such as: the “acoustic community” of a neighbourhood (13); soundscape signals, rhythms, cycles and balance (13); inhabitant perceptual evaluations of urban sonic environments and noise (9, 16, 18); significant places within a city or neighbourhood that contribute to its sonic identity (16); spatio-temporal soundscape qualities (6); sonic comfort of inhabitants (9, 18); a place’s sonic identity and the qualities and characteristics that contribute to it (9, 17, 18, 19); and “quiet areas” in a city, as per the European Noise Directives’s definition (17).

In Vogiatzis and Remy’s studies of Heraklion, Volos and Larissa, researchers follow the Model’s operative approach and develop noise action plans to manage and design each city’s sonic identity. In each project, researchers combine qualitative soundscape and quantitative environmental noise approaches through a crossed-analysis of sonic identity maps and soundmark maps and strategic noise maps. The researchers analyse and describe each place through its Environment, Milieu and Landscape dimensions and use this perspective to develop recommendations for managing each dimension. The action plans involve preserving soundscape qualities identified by residents, managing social activities and land use, and designing and enhancing sound elements to enhance inhabitant perceptions and promote listening. These studies form the first applied examples of qualitative methods used in collaboration with the long-standing quantitative approaches within the European Directive (9).

3.1. Reported usefulness of the Sonic Identity Model

Review of these seven case studies reveal insights into the reported usefulness of the Model’s individual methods and conceptual tools, and the overall methodology.

Paquette demonstrates the use of Sonic Mind Maps in situ, describing it as a useful method for site studies that equips practitioners with a better understanding of the daily life and cycles in the area (13 p. 71). However, he describes the method as “simplistic” and limited in its capacity to generate in-depth information (13 p. 71, 75) information. López Barrio & Carles state that the method demonstrated the importance of context in sound evaluation and revealed the subjective evaluations and meaning inhabitants hold (16). Paquette reports that Re-activated Listening Interviews demonstrated local inhabitants’ complex sonic knowledge, provided a deep understanding of sonic environment criteria shaping listener perception, and ultimately enhanced listener perception (13 p. 85, 111, 117). López Barrio & Carles describe the method as useful for understanding the strong interrelation between sound and context (16). However, Paquette and Karapostoli & Votsi note the Model’s interview and survey methods prove challenging to use in practice, as participants found the subject matter of sound difficult to talk about (13, 19).

Practitioner uses of Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria demonstrate the value of these extensive concepts as documentation, analysis and pedagogical tools. Hellström’s study shows how these tools may be scaled down and applied by individual practitioners in situ to conduct limited site studies (6). Paquette demonstrates the value of Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria as tools for analysis. He states that Qualitative Criteria express the interaction between a listener’s relation to and perception of sounds and their relation to and knowledge of the environment (13 p. 115-116).

of 5 10

Sonic Effects express particular sets of listener-sound-environment relationships that can be identified and to a degree abstracted and measured (13 p. 116). He argues that, together, these tools help practitioners understand “how inhabitants perceive their environment and perform subjective descriptions of their own experience based on various criteria linked to their type of listening, their knowledge of the soundscape and their individual values and judgements” (13 p. 122). Hellström describes these repertoires as useful pedagogical tools for training listener attention and analytic skills (6 p. 173).

The case studies demonstrate the methodology’s applicability in a range of settings — from large-scale city wide studies to smaller local studies, by research teams or individual practitioners, with many inhabitants or none — and show how practitioners may use the Model in combination with environmental noise approaches. Paquette promotes this joint approach, stating that it is necessary to apply the Model in conjunction with objective methods to best analyse the relationship between the objective “reality” and its subjective representation (13 p. 116). Karapostoli & Votsi, Korkontzila, and Vogiatzis & Remy each show how the Model’s EMP perspective may be used to bring together and describe objective (Environment), subjective (Milieu) and inter-subjective (Landscape) soundscape qualities. Vogiatzis & Remy demonstrate how practitioners can use this understanding to generate new ways for managing environmental sound. The researchers position the EMP Model as a useful evaluation tool that supports decision-making processes and authorises developers and decision-makers to preserve, rehabilitate and evolve sound qualities in urban environments over time, improve acoustic comfort for inhabitants, and reduce annoyance (9, 18).

4. ADAPTATION AND APPLICATION OF THE MODEL IN A PILOT STUDY

In this section I discuss my use of the Sonic Identity Model in a pilot study that was undertaken as part of my Master of Design by research completed in 2020. The pilot study investigated the Model’s usefulness as a tool for individual practitioner soundscape analysis and description in singular indoor and outdoor urban environments. The project resulted in two outputs: an adaptation of the Model, suitable for the project context, and the analysis and description of the two study sites from my subjective listening perspective. For a detailed explanation of the project, see my dissertation or video ‘exhibit’ presentation where I unfold the pilot study and its materials (8).

4.1. Adaptation of the Model

To use the Sonic Identity Model in the project context required significant adaptation and scaling to shift focus from a city to an individual site; from its use by a research team to an individual; from the study of out-of-context inhabitant perceptions to my individual, in situ listening experience.

The adaptation was developed and realised as the Sonic Identity Practitioner Adaptation (SIPA). The SIPA is presented as a manual that directs a practitioner, through four phases, to document, analyse and describe sonic environment qualities and characteristics of singular urban spaces.

Phase one focuses on soundscape documentation. Amphoux’s Sonic Mind Map method is augmented and extended into two techniques: free-form and time-based in situ sonic mind maps. The free-form technique applies Amphoux’s mapping method in situ. The time-based method involves drawing every sound heard over a specific period of time and when it is heard, through the use of a timer. This time-based method is not original; it has been used in research and teaching activities by practitioners at RMIT University (20). Phase one also incorporates the Model’s Sonic Composition and Sonic Effects tools as methods for data collection and, in lieu of interview methods, introduces written sound commentary as a documentation tool.

Phases two and three involve the collation and analysis of documentation results. It employs the Model’s recurrent structure, requiring its user to analyse and re-analyse results through the Model’s

of 6 10

Sonic Composition, Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria tools and uses Amphoux’s Sonic Identity Chart to bring all results together.

Phase four of the SIPA is focused on communicating the results in written, sonic and visual formats. It guides a practitioner to produce a written narrative description of the place studied using Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria vocabulary and a composite Sonic Composition map that visually represents the dominant Background, Ambience and Signal sounds of each environment with location and distance information. This is supported by “sonic sketches” — short ambisonic audio segments of each site.

4.2. Application of the Adaptation in a Pilot Study

The SIPA was applied to study two individual sites within the RMIT University campus in Melbourne: ‘Couch Study Space,’ an indoor multi-use study space, and ‘University Lawn,’ an outdoor recreational space. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some components of the project (audio recording and acoustic measurements) could not be completed.

The pilot study involved my iterative in situ documentation of each site and the collective analysis of results. Between September 2018 and August 2019 I carried out 17 site documentations across the two sites, producing 27 sound maps and 219 sound commentary notes, documenting 64 different Sonic Effects, and categorising 101 different Background, Ambience and Signal sounds. I then analysed and re-analysed the results following phases two and three of the SIPA. I collated, and systemised sound commentary results by redundancy, and analysed commentary and sound maps to reveal insights into the soundscape and my perception of it and identify additional Sonic Effects and Background, Ambience and Signal sounds not documented in situ. Through use of Amphoux’s Sonic Identity Chart I concluded my analysis by identifying dominant Sonic Effects and the sound and conditions they relate to, and distinguished Qualitative Criteria expressed in the documentation results.

Following phase four of the Adaptation, I concluded the pilot study by communicating my soundscape analysis results of each site through a written narrative description and a composite Sonic Composition map. The aural component of phase four — the production of “sonic sketches” — could not be completed due to the impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Each written output uses the Model’s vocabulary of Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria to describe the environment in terms of sonic structure, composition, spatial qualities, narrativity, social qualities and rhythmic qualities. The descriptive findings on each site bring together insights from multiple listenings to express my collective perception of the soundscapes of Couch Study Space and of University Lawn.

As an example, findings on the University Lawn site describe its structure as Metabolic and Schizophonic; that is, it is characterised by a dynamic meta-stable structure of unstable emerging sounds (Metabolic Criteria). Sounds continuously emerge and disappear from close and afar, placing me within two radically different acoustic spaces: that of the immediate site, and that of the distant city (Schizophonic Criteria). Within this Schizophony there is compositional clarity as continuous sounds stabilise the soundscape (Compositional Clarity Criteria). These stable sounds include the continuous, unwavering Drone of building mechanical services (Drone Effect) and the a water feature that Immerses me (Immersion Sonic Effect) and Masks other sounds (Mask Sonic Effect).

4.3. Project Outcomes

The two outputs of the project — the Sonic Identity Practitioner Adaptation and the written and visual description of each project site — offer insights into the usefulness of the Model and its Adaptation.

of 7 10

The pilot study demonstrates the applicability of the Model in the project setting. It shows how the large and complex Sonic Identity methodology can be scaled down, adapted and applied by an individual to investigate singular urban spaces, and demonstrates its use in indoor settings, which are seldom studied in soundscape research.

When applied by an individual practitioner, the Adaptation’s methods for data collection served as valuable pedagogical and documentation tools. Through use of the adapted methods I developed my listening skills and developed new ways to think about sound in the environment. Mapping techniques developed my spatial awareness and understanding of sound-environment relations. Time-based maps in particular revealed my listening habits and preferences as the method demanded I make choices of which sounds to pay attention to, which sounds to draw, and which to leave out. The Sonic Composition tool developed my critical listening skills as it required I listen for, evaluate and categorise sounds as they emerged with consideration for sound rhythm, movement, duration, and discontinuity, and demanded active reflection of my reception towards the sounds. Sonic Effects enabled me to turn focus to my subjective reactions towards and evaluation of sounds, attuning into what is described by CRESSON as my “internal soundscape” (14 p. 9).

Each adapted documentation method revealed different sound qualities and perceptual information, and together produced extensive material for analysis that spanned daily cycles of events and activities; sound propagation behaviour; sound distance, localisation and movement information; sound rhythms and cycles; spatial and temporal dimensions; subjective listener perception; and the physical, symbolic, contextual and perceptual Sonic Effects of sounds. Free- form and time-based maps captured temporal, spatial and localisation information and highlighted the complexity of each sonic environment, but were limited in their documentation of height information. Timelines produced from time-based maps revealed shifts in listening behaviour over time, and revealing additional Sonic Effects (8). The Sonic Composition tool was a useful method for documenting clear and organised time-based “snapshots” of the sonic environments. Repeated use of this method revealed how the Sonic Composition of each environment shifted over time, and the events, activities and daily rhythms and cycles that influenced it (8). Sonic Effects served as a useful repository of terms and descriptors for quickly and comprehensively documenting both complex physical sound behaviour and my subjective perceptions of sounds in the environment in situ (8).

Outputs from the pilot study demonstrate the use of Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria as useful analysis, description and communication tools. The tools provided a way to articulate previously nameless sonic environment qualities and listening experiences with a system of logic. Together these repertoires supplied a language with which to rigorously talk about sound and describe sonic environments while always keeping the listener in the picture (8). Milieu and Landscape Qualitative Criteria proved difficult to identify, due in part to a lack of expressive comments in the data and to the schematic and symbolic definitions of these Criteria (8).

This section is only half done you can kinda ignore it. I will make it better.

5. CONCLUSIONS — 1st draft version The Sonic Identity Model offers practitioners working with environmental sound an enriching, albeit complex, alternative approach for soundscape analysis, management and design. The methodology is not without its challenges; its schematic and French way of thinking makes it difficult for practitioners to engage with it. Further, Amphoux states its non-linear structure prohibits “a systematic application,” meaning that practitioners must always put in work to use the Model in practice (21).

The Sonic Identity Model may be best thought of as a guiding framework for practice, comprising a toolkit of flexible and self-standing methods and conceptual tools which practitioners may draw from, scale, adapt and expand upon to build a workflow suitable for the project at hand. This toolkit

of 8 10

may be applied in collaboration with established environmental noise and soundscape approaches and is applicable in both large-scale and limited site studies, by research teams and individuals.

The Model’s Sonic Effects and Qualitative Criteria tools offer practitioners extensive vocabularies for distinguishing, naming and describing sound through the way it is heard and understood with rigour and a system of logic. These repertoires describing sound its totality, encompassing its physical, social, cultural and perceptual dimensions.

The Model’s proposes a multi-dimensional approach for understanding environmental sound that brings together signal-focused environmental noise and listener-focused soundscape perspectives. In doing so, it embraces the qualitative and quantitative methods and techniques from each discipline and suggests a pathway for joint soundscape analysis, management and design. However, further work is required to better understand the Model’s potential use in collaboration with other tools and techniques, in contemporary environmental noise settings and within the context of local noise policies, regulations and criteria.

The pilot study demonstrates the value of the Adaptation’s methods and the Model’s conceptual tools for analysis in limited site studies. The pilot study points to the potential use of methods and concepts from the Model for use in site surveys and assessments.

6. REFERENCES 1. Truax B. Acoustic communication. 1st ed. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation ; 1984. 2. Brown AL. Soundscape planning as a complement to environmental noise management. In: Proceedings of 43rd International Congress on Noise Control Engineering; 2014; Melbourne, Australia. 3. Raimbault M, Dubois D. Urban soundscapes: experiences and knowledge. Cities. 2005;22(5):339-350. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2005.05.003 4. Schulte-Fortkamp B, Brooks BM, Bray WR. Soundscape: an approach to rely on human perception and expertise in the post-modern community noise era. Acoustics Today. 2007;3(1):7-15. doi: 10.1121/1.2961148. 5. Hällgren N. Urban sound design: can we talk about it?. Sound Effects. 2012;2(2):42-43. doi: 10.7146/se.v2i2.8025. 6. Hellström B. Noise design: architectural modelling and the aesthetics of urban acoustic space. Göteborg: Bo Ejeby Forlag; 2003. 7. Brown AL. Soundscapes and environmental noise management. Noise Control Engineering Journal. 2010;58(5):493-500. doi: 10.3397/1.3484178. 8. Gleeson, S. Listening for design: urban sonic experience and the sonic identity model [Masters dissertation]. Melbourne: RMIT University; 2020. Available from https:// researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/esploro/outputs/graduate/Listening-for-design-urban-sonic- experience/9921956711501341?institution=61RMIT_INST. 9. Amphoux P. L’ identité sonore des villes Européennes. CRESSON, IREC Institut de Recherche sur l’Environnement Construit; 1993. 10. Vogiatzis K, Rémy N. From environmental noise abatement to soundscape creation through

strategic noise mapping in medium urban agglomerations in south Europe. Science of the Total Environment. 2013;482-483: 420-431. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.098. 11. Hellström B. The sonic identity of European cities: a presentation of the work conducted by the

Swiss-French researcher Pascal Amphoux. In: Järviluoma H, Wagstaff G, editors. Soundscape Studies and Methods; 2002.

of 9 10

12. Amphoux P. Defining a sound ecology of urban space. In: Wilson A, editor. Sound worlds from

the body to the city: LISTEN! Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2019. 13. Paquette D. Describing the contemporary sound environment: an analysis of three approaches,

their synthesis, and a case study of Commercial Drive, Vancouver, BC [Masters thesis]. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, 2004. Available from http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/ iritems1/8672/ b51323679.pdf. 14. Augoyard JF, Torgue H, editors. Sonic experience: a guide to everyday sound. McCartney A,

Paquette D, translators. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press; 2005. 15. Schafer M. Introduction. In: Augoyard JF, Torgue H, editors. Sonic experience: a guide to

everyday sound. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press; 2005. 16. López Barrio I, Carles J. Acoustic dimensions of inhabited areas: quality criteria. The

Soundscape Newsletter. 1995 Feb;10: 6-8. 17. Korkontzila A, Karapostoli A, Tsaligopoulos A, Matsinos YG. Assessing the effects of noise on

sound identities of historical landmarks. Acoustics. 2020;2: 719–734. doi: 10.3390/ acoustics2040039. 18. Vogiatzis K, Remy N. Strategic noise mapping of Herakleion: the aircraft noise impact as a

factor of the int. airport relocation. Noise Mapp. 2014;1:15-31. doi: 10.2478/noise-2014-0003. 19. Karapostoli A, Votsi N. Urban soundscapes in the historic centre of Thessaloniki: sonic

architecture and sonic identity. Sound Studies. 2018;4(2):162-177. doi: 10.1080/20551940.2019.1582744. 20. Harvey L, Moloney J. Resounding cities: acoustic ecology and games technologies. In:

Wulfhorst JD, Haugestad AK, editors. Building sustainable communities: environmental justice and global citizenship. Amsterdam: Rodopi; 2006. 21. Amphoux P. EMP Method. Interviewed by Björn Hellström. EMP Method. 06 Sep 2000

(unpublished).

of 10 10