Interdisciplinary collaboration to identify challenges and opportunities in urban sound planning Josh Hernandez 1 School of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia Marion Burgess 2 School of Engineering & Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, 2610, Australia Deo Prasad 3 School of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia

ABSTRACT Urban sound planning aims to integrate soundscape approaches within existing planning frameworks to create sound environments which are conducive to health and wellbeing. It recognises that the best soundscape outcomes are achieved when acoustic environments are considered from the outset of the urban planning and design process—and that this must be done with the interdisciplinary involvement of professionals from a range of fields. While the benefits of soundscape approaches in urban design have been demonstrated, positive soundscapes and public health outcomes have been limited by a gap between theoretical understandings of sound as a manageable resource versus implementation in planning and the built environment. This is especially true in jurisdictions that lack quality-based environmental noise policies, as their regulatory actions are confined to the mitigation of “noise” as a waste or pollutant. This paper explores the challenges for implementation of quality urban sound planning within the regulatory system using the example of New South Wales, Australia. Barriers and opportunities for soundscape approaches in planning are discussed, based on experiences from professionals in relevant domains and examples of successful soundscape and health outcomes in other jurisdictions.

1. INTRODUCTION

Management of the acoustic environment is a global problem of increasing concern and complexity, as the worldwide population gravitates towards urban areas where noise pollution is prevalent [1]. A robust body of evidence has demonstrated the long-term health effects of exposure to noise [2], and in response to this the World Health Organisation (WHO) has put forward environmental noise guidelines which recommend noise exposure levels that aim to minimise adverse health outcomes [3].

1 j.hernandez@unsw.edu.au

2 m.burgess@adfa.edu.au

3 d.prasad@unsw.edu.au

Policy responses to noise pollution have traditionally focused on broad application of limits aimed at reducing sound levels for receivers. Limits are enacted through mitigation, following a hierarchy of preferred interventions beginning at the sound source, extending through the acoustic pathway, and acting upon receivers as a last resort [4].

On a strategic level, and where possible, differentiated land use planning is employed to separate noise sources from receivers and minimise conflicts. Noise mapping has also been undertaken in cities around the world, with the goal of identifying both sites of high exposure and tranquil areas which may be earmarked for conservation [2,5] This was largely spurred by the EU’s Environmental Noise Directive (2002), which legislated a requirement for noise monitoring large population centres in Europe [6]. 2. THE NEED FOR SOUNDSCAPE APPROACHES IN NOISE MANAGEMENT

2.1. Limitations of current noise management paradigms The limitations of conventional noise management paradigms have become increasingly apparent in the past decade—and have been highlighted recently due to changes brought about by the COVID- 19 pandemic. Chief among these limitations is the assumption that quiet and reduced sound levels always correlate to improved quality of life—this does not hold true, especially in urban areas where an eventful soundscape can be perceived positively as a component of ‘vibrancy’ [7,8]. The widespread lockdowns of the past two years, aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19, also demonstrated that the reduction of sound levels from various sources does not equate to a reduction of the perceived noise—the number of noise complaints in cities around the world actually increased during this period [9,10].

The mechanism of community noise complaints reflects the fact that many environmental noise management systems around the world are based upon estimated thresholds of annoyance. This is because noise management arose as a community issue, dealing with cases of “offensive noise” (a term which remains the official criterion for noise mitigation in some jurisdictions, e.g. New South Wales, Australia) [4]. Yet despite this “community” focus, noise management often focuses on the grievances and health of individuals, rather than the overall health of the community as a social unit linked to a sense of place [11].

There is also growing evidence that the presence of certain sounds can be correlated with good health in individuals, contrary to the assumption that the removal of sounds creates better outcomes [12,13]. Similarly, there is increasing recognition among urban planners and policymakers of the social and economic value of activated precincts and streetscapes within the urban fabric. Such concepts of placemaking and liveability have gained prominence in strategic and visionary planning, particularly as urban communities respond to the challenges brought about by COVID-19. As planners attempt to holistically manage the health and social wellbeing of their communities, they often seek to create lively and vibrant soundscapes without fully understanding how to implement them.

2.2. Soundscape practice and urban sound planning Soundscape studies provide us with an alternate paradigm for environmental noise management— one that not only seeks to mitigate unwanted sounds which cause discomfort, but also encourages sounds of preference [14,15]. The conception of sound as a resource, rather than just as a waste product, allows for acoustic environments to be managed holistically in ways which overcome the above limitations. Soundscape studies tell us that the acoustic environment can be improved not only by removing sounds, but also by introducing desired sounds and preserving those which are linked to sense-of-place [11]. Over the past decade, urban sound planning has emerged as a field of inquiry which aims to integrate soundscape approaches within existing planning frameworks, through collaboration between disciplines related to soundscape, and community consultation [16,17,18].

However, while such approaches are promising, there remains a gap between theoretical understandings of soundscape—including its benefits and its potential integration—and practical implementation in planning and regulation [19]. This is especially the case in jurisdictions outside of the EU, where the lack of a policy-side driver akin to the END (2002) [6] has left regulators with

little motivation to introduce soundscape approaches in their environmental noise management systems. Even for soundscape projects which have successfully assembled interdisciplinary teams, there has been difficulty in communicating the value and relevance of soundscape approaches to the professionals involved, or incorporating these approaches on a systemic level [15,18]. 3. CHALLENGES TO URBAN SOUND PLANNING

3.1. Insights from professional practice At a recent gathering of acousticians in Australia, I interviewed professionals from a variety of disciplines (e.g. noise control, environmental noise regulation, architectural acoustics) and sectors (including government agencies and consulting companies). My questions sought to assess what they viewed as the barriers and opportunities for soundscape approaches to be integrated into their professional practice, as well as their awareness, perceptions, and understandings of soundscape approaches.

To this end, one question sought examples of projects where acousticians felt that they would have achieved better outcomes using soundscape approaches—and if such approaches had been enabled or restricted by current regulatory systems. Another asked if they were familiar with the concept of soundscape, and how they saw it relating to their professional practice (or not). I also asked them to consider any changes that needed to be made to existing noise management systems to accommodate soundscape approaches, and if there were any justifications for soundscape approaches which they felt were still lacking.

During these interviews, I clarified the definitions of key soundscape terms with professionals if they seemed unsure of what I meant, and also referred to examples of best practice in soundscape where relevant. The insights from those conversations are outlined below.

3.2. Current systems of environmental noise management In the Australian context, present practices in environmental noise management make it difficult for soundscape approaches to be conceived and implemented outside of jurisdictions or projects that have identified it as a specific aim. Broadly, time-averaged loudness is the sole metric through which environmental noise is assessed—and noise control actions are focused upon reducing this to the levels deemed permissible in the regulatory framework [4]. Given that this conception of sound is solely quantitative and based on the assumption that “quieter is better”, there is no way to justify a soundscape planning solution that would introduce or preserve a desired sound when such an intervention would objectively increase the measured sound level.

Acousticians are aware of the shortcomings of loudness-based paradigms of noise management, and some of them voiced their frustrations at the lack of common sense which results from the current system. This included questions of jurisdiction around certain noise sources—for example, in the state of NSW, the regulation of noise is divided between different regulatory authorities depending on the noise source. The noise legislation specifies certain activities as being under the regulation of the NSW Environment Protection Authority, and then prescribes separate authorities for other activities. Any noise sources not covered by these provisions are then regulated by local governments—with the exception of liquor-licensed premises (which are managed separately by the state government) and aircraft (which are managed by the federal government of Australia). This fragmentation of noise policy between different levels of government is a major barrier to the strategic management of noise, especially in complex settings such as urban spaces and activated precincts— and this challenge has also presented itself in other nations with federal systems of government, such as Germany [20].

Environmental noise management in NSW is also primarily reactive. This reflects a common sentiment from acousticians around the world—that opportunities to improve acoustic environments are limited by a reactionary process that limits proactive solutions being implemented during the design phase [1,18]. Acousticians attributed this to a lack of perceived value or priority in the management of the acoustic environment—even projects which initially considered acoustic quality

would drop those considerations in the event of cost-cutting, while preserving other aesthetic and visual criteria [11].

3.3. Misunderstandings of soundscape While much work has been done within the field of soundscape studies to standardise its terminology and methods [21,22,23,24], it is uncertain if this standardisation has disseminated to other fields of acoustics which would be best placed to make this research actionable. Several professionals whom I interviewed initially understood the term “soundscape” to refer only to acoustic ecology (and thus, more to do with environmental studies than design and urban planning), or to composition and designed sound interventions (as in public art, water features, or popular conceptions of soundscape in media). Upon further discussion, they were surprised to understand that soundscape studies have evolved to become applicable to noise management and planning practice.

The rigour of soundscape research was also another point of misconception, as some professionals’ awareness of soundscape seemed to only extend to when they had first heard about the concept in previous decades. As a result, they carried the incorrect assumption that some aspects of soundscape, such as perceptual relationships or correlation with psychoacoustic indices, were still untested or unaddressed (and while it can be said that soundscape studies are an emerging discipline, they are certainly not as unproven as some acousticians suggested in their initial comments).

These conversations demonstrate that there continues to be a gap between theory and research in soundscape, and the professional practice of acousticians who could be utilising these insights [19]. And this is only within the field of acoustics—how much larger would this gap be for a planner or engineer, with an entirely different disciplinary background? 4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR URBAN SOUND PLANNING

4.1. Holistic noise management incorporating soundscape approaches There is a clear need for environmental noise management systems to be updated in jurisdictions where the importance of strategic and holistic noise management has not already been recognised. Noise management in the EU, as driven by the END (2002), is the most prominent instance of such a system—and there are also examples of subnational jurisdictions using the term “soundscape” in its technical sense within planning documents [25,26].

In line with these cases, within regulatory systems such as those of NSW, Australia, soundscape management needs to be reframed as a strategic element of planning, and incorporated at a policy level. The aims of soundscape management are already concordant with the aims of existing strategic plans, which encourage outcomes such as the provision of greenspace, activated streetscapes, and liveable precincts with human-centred design [27,28,29].

4.1. Transdisciplinary soundscape practice Soundscape studies exist at the intersection (or perhaps overlap) of multiple established disciplines, including but not limited to acoustics, engineering, psychology, policy, planning, design, architecture, and composition [30]. They frequently draw on this interdisciplinary foundation in their conceptual backgrounds, and the same breadth of ideas must also be harnessed to enable holistic soundscape solutions.

Thanks to the advances of soundscape studies within the past two decades, there is a general awareness among disciplines of soundscape as a field of study, and interdisciplinary collaborations on the subject have become frequent in the past two decades [31]. However, there is a lack of depth in professionals’ understandings of soundscape approaches—and even within acoustics, those who are aware of soundscape are not always aware of the value which it holds for their professional practice. The longstanding nature of this problem [18,32,33] indicates that perhaps broader conversations between disciplines must take place about the value of acoustic quality and well- managed soundscapes.

The fields of design thinking and innovation studies provide insights into why this kind of value reframing is important, and how it can be achieved. A key concept is the difference between inter disciplinary innovation approaches and trans disciplinary approaches: the former requires

disciplines to use their respective methodologies together to solve predetermined problems; while the latter requires disciplines to synthesise their methodologies and knowledge to create new ways of thinking, in order to solve an evolving, complex issue in a dialogic manner [34,35].

One method for synthesising approaches in a transdisciplinary way is discussed by Dorst [36] in his “frame creation model”—a process which focuses not on the a priori definition of a problem or methodology, but which instead begins by identifying a key ‘value’ that underpins the challenge being addressed. This leads to the creation of ‘frames’ through which the challenge is analysed, with an eye to resolving paradoxes inherent in the system and creating new epistemologies and solutions with stakeholders.

The appropriateness of design thinking for acoustics has already been suggested in relation to the strategic management of aircraft noise [37], and there are opportunities for its broader application in the evolving practices of holistic noise management and urban sound planning. While soundscape studies have largely achieved a transdisciplinary level of knowledge synthesis, the same epistemological advances have not yet established themselves broadly in the practical application of soundscape approaches, especially when other disciplines and stakeholders are involved. 5. CONCLUSIONS

As urban acoustic environments become increasingly complex, there is a growing need to manage them holistically beyond the common practice of focusing on noise pollution and mitigation. Urban sound planning offers a means to do this, extending the scope of noise management to include the management of sound as a resource, and consulting with communities to introduce and conserve sounds of preference. However, the adoption of such soundscape approaches is restricted by the structure of loudness-based noise management systems, which remain common throughout the world.

While the incorporation of soundscape approaches is an ongoing process in some jurisdictions, other places which lack policy recognition of the importance of soundscape will face an uphill battle to see such changes enacted. To achieve this, a greater awareness of soundscape and its benefits is required among professionals in and around the field of acoustics—and there should be deeper engagement between disciplines than what is currently achieved through incidental collaboration. A reframing of value must take place in order to obtain interdisciplinary “buy-in” for soundscape approaches—and it should be emphasised that they are a holistic, widely applicable skillset which can operate in synergy with current professional practice, rather than in opposition to it.

The design thinking concepts of transdisciplinary synthesis and frame creation provide a potential means of addressing this challenge—allowing soundscape-related disciplines to co-create a methodology for noise management and urban sound planning which holistically manages the acoustic environment. In doing so, soundscape researchers and practitioners may overcome the challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration in urban sound planning to date, and achieve better health outcomes for individuals and communities. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is supported by the Anita B. Lawrence PhD Scholarship in Acoustics. 7. REFERENCES

1. Aletta, F. (2022). Listening to cities: From noisy environments to positive soundscapes. In

Frontiers 2022: Noise, Blazes and Mismatches – Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern (pp. 7–22). United Nations Environment Programme. 2. European Environment Agency. (2020). Environmental noise in Europe—2020 . Publications

Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/686249 3. World Health Organisation. (2018). Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region.

WHO Regional Office for Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the- european-region-2018

4. NSW Environment Protection Authority. (2021). Noise Guide for Local Government (Draft for

consultation). 5. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2002). Directive 2002/49/EC relating

to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Official Journal of the European Communities , L 189, 12–26. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/49/oj 6. Bite, P. Z., Mahaba, H. M., Sillo, S., & Varfi, L. (2017). Long-term noise monitoring and urban

planning—A case study. In L. Chang (Ed.), Proceedings of 46th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering (INTERNOISE 2017) (5401–5406). INCE-USA. 7. Bento Coelho, J. L. (2016). Approaches to Urban Soundscape Management, Planning, and

Design. In J. Kang & B. Schulte-Fortkamp (Eds.), Soundscape and the built environment (pp. 197–214). CRC Press. 8. Aletta, F., & Kang, J. (2018). Towards an Urban Vibrancy Model: A Soundscape Approach.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (8), 1712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081712 9. Tong, H., Aletta, F., Mitchell, A., Oberman, T., & Kang, J. (2021). Increases in noise complaints

during the COVID-19 lockdown in Spring 2020: A case study in Greater London, UK. Science of The Total Environment , 785 , 147213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147213 10. Buret, M. & Just, E. (2022). Evolution of noise pollution reports during COVID-19. In

N. Kessissoglou & M. Buret (Eds.), Acoustics 2021 Making Waves: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Acoustical Society (89). AAS. https://acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2021/papers/p89.pdf 11. Cogger, R., & Marshall, N. (2019). A Sound Understanding of Healthy Cities. In K. Bishop & N.

Marshall (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of People and Place in the 21st-Century City (1st ed., pp. 43–52). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351211543- 6/sound-understanding-healthy-cities-rachel-cogger-nancy-marshall 12. Aletta, F., Oberman, T., & Kang, J. (2018). Associations between Positive Health-Related Effects

and Soundscapes Perceptual Constructs: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (11), 2392. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112392 13. Erfanian, M., Mitchell, A. J., Kang, J., & Aletta, F. (2019). The Psychophysiological Implications

of Soundscape: A Systematic Review of Empirical Literature and a Research Agenda. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 (19), 3533. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193533 14. Brown, A. L. (2012). A review of progress in soundscapes and an approach to soundscape

planning. The International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration , 17 (2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.20855/ijav.2012.17.2302 15. Cerwén, G. (2017). Sound in Landscape Architecture: A Soundscape Approach to Noise [Doctoral

thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences]. https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/14586/3/cerwen_g_170927.pdf 16. Kropp, W., Forssén, J., & Estévez-Mauriz, L. (2016). Urban sound planning: The SONORUS

project . https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/242257/local_242257.pdf 17. Xiao, J., Lavia, L., & Kang, J. (2018). Towards an agile participatory urban soundscape planning

framework. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 61 (4), 677–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1331843 18. Estévez-Mauriz, L. (2020). Urban Sound Planning—An attempt to bridge the gap [Doctoral

thesis, Chalmers University of Technology]. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/515502/file/515502_Fulltext.pdf 19. Aletta, F., & Xiao, J. (2018). What are the Current Priorities and Challenges for (Urban)

Soundscape Research? Challenges , 9 (1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe9010016 20. Lippold, M., & Lawrence, B. T. (2019). Soundscape Planning as a Tool for Urban Planning. In

M. Ochmann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics, Integrating 4th EAA Euroregio 2019 (7035–7042). DEGA. https://pub.dega-akustik.de/ICA2019/data/index.html

21. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2014). ISO 12913-1:2014 Acoustics—

Soundscape—Part 1: Definition and conceptual framework . https://www.iso.org/standard/52161.html 22. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 Acoustics—

Soundscape—Part 2: Data collection and reporting requirements . https://www.iso.org/standard/75267.html 23. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2019). ISO/TS 12913-3:2019 Acoustics—

Soundscape—Part 3: Data analysis . https://www.iso.org/standard/69864.html 24. Mitchell, A., Oberman, T., Aletta, F., Erfanian, M., Kachlicka, M., Lionello, M., & Kang, J.

(2020). The Soundscape Indices (SSID) Protocol: A Method for Urban Soundscape Surveys— Questionnaires with Acoustical and Contextual Information. Applied Sciences , 10 (7), 2397. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072397 25. City of London Corporation. (2016). Noise Strategy 2016 to 2026 . 26. Welsh Government. (2018). Noise and soundscape action plan: 2018 to 2023 . 27. Greater Sydney Commission. (2018). Greater Sydney Region Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities .

https://www.greater.sydney/metropolis-of-three-cities 28. Government Architect New South Wales. (2017). Better Placed: An integrated design policy for

the built environment of New South Wales . https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/policies/better-placed 29. Government Architect New South Wales. (2020). Greener Places: An urban green infrastructure

design framework for New South Wales . https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/policies/greener-places 30. Kang, J., Aletta, F., Gjestland, T. T., Brown, A. L., Botteldooren, D., Schulte-Fortkamp, B.,

Lercher, P., van Kamp, I., Genuit, K., Fiebig, A., Bento Coelho, J. L., Maffei, L., & Lavia, L. (2016). Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment. Building and Environment , 108 , 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.08.011 31. Kang, J. (2021). Soundscape: Progress in the past 50 years and challenges in the next 50 years. In

T. Dare, S. Bolton, P. Davies, Y. Xue, & G. Ebbitt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering (INTERNOISE 2021) (132–139). INCE- USA. https://doi.org/10.3397/IN-2021-1302 32. Raimbault, M., & Dubois, D. (2005). Urban soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cities ,

22 (5), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2005.05.003 33. Alves, S., Estévez-Mauriz, L., Aletta, F., Echevarria-Sanchez, G. M., & Romero, V. P. (2015).

Towards the integration of urban sound planning in urban development processes: The study of four test sites within the SONORUS project. Noise Mapping , 2 (1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2015-0005 34. McPhee, C., Bliemel, M., & van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2018). Editorial: Transdisciplinary

Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review , 8 (8), 5. 35. van der Bijl, M. (2018, February 11). Transdisciplinary Innovation and Design. Medium .

https://medium.com/@miekevanderbijl/transdisciplinary-innovation-and-design-d19d1520ddca 36. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies , 32 (6), 521–532.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 37. Heyes, G. (2021). A strategic approach to noise action planning? In T. Dare, S. Bolton, P. Davies,

Y. Xue, & G. Ebbitt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering (INTERNOISE 2021) (987–995). INCE-USA. https://doi.org/10.3397/IN-2021-1722