What is a soundscape intervention? Exploring definitions and identifi- cation criteria and a platform to gather real-world examples Cleopatra Christina Moshona 1 Technische Universität Berlin Einsteinufer 25, 10587 Berlin, Germany Francesco Aletta 2 University College London Central House, WC1H 0NN, London, UK Helen Henze Technische Universität Berlin Einsteinufer 25, 10587 Berlin, Germany Xiaochao Chen University College London Central House, WC1H 0NN, London, UK Andrew Mitchell University College London Central House, WC1H 0NN, London, UK

Tin Oberman University College London Central House, WC1H 0NN, London, UK Huan Tong University College London Central House, WC1H 0NN, London, UK André Fiebig Technische Universität Berlin Einsteinufer 25, 10587 Berlin, Germany Jian Kang University College London Central House, WC1H 0NN, London, UK Brigitte Schulte-Fortkamp Technische Universität Berlin ( retired ) Einsteinufer 25, 10587 Berlin, Germany

ABSTRACT Possible definitions for the concept of “soundscape intervention” and criteria that could be used to identify stages in a design-oriented framework are discussed. This is in line with the Part 4 of the ISO 12913 series on soundscape being currently developed. For some time already, the soundscape con- cept has attracted attention from policymakers and practitioners of the built environment, as it advo- cates for more engagement with local communities in design processes. This is reflected in several documents published by national and international agencies calling for consultation and participa- tion of the public in the definition of soundscape interventions. However, this intended framework is still trying to bridge a gap with the planning and design community, possibly for the lack of conspic- uous empirical evidence (i.e., case studies and success stories) showing the benefits provided by the soundscape approach, and some lack of consensus about what a “soundscape intervention” is in the first place. Therefore, an online platform will be presented that can be used for data collection of soundscape intervention examples. This relates to the preliminary stage of a project called “Cata- logue of Soundscape Interventions (CSI)”, which has the long-term goal of observing frequent/recur- ring situations or strategies that can be collated into design toolkits and formulate design briefs that local authorities will be using to communicate with soundscape consultants.

1 c.moshona@tu-berlin.de 2 f.aletta@ucl.ac.uk

worm 2022

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the late 1960s soundscape studies have been rising steadily as a research field with an increased growth rate in the last 20 years approximately. Indeed, looking at the scientific production published in peer-reviewed international journals for the last two decades, one can observe a significant increase in the number of items published on soundscape with a focus on urban scenarios (i.e., excluding naturalistic and marine soundscapes and other very specific applications where the term soundscape is used) [1]. The soundscape concept has generally been able to attract attention from policymakers, as it advo- cates for more engagement with local communities [2]. This is reflected in several documents pub- lished by national and international agencies calling for consultation and participation of the public in the preparation and review of action plans and a more user-centred approach to the characterization, management, and design of urban acoustic environments [3-6]. However, this intended framework did not really make any significant breakthrough in the planning and design community [7,8] possibly for (a) the lack of conspicuous empirical evidence (i.e., case studies and success stories) showing the benefits provided by the soundscape approach; and (b) the lack of available systematic reviews of best practices in soundscape preservation, design and curation, which could serve as a theoretical basis for developing planning and design strategies. Collections of successful soundscape design interventions are quite scarce [9,10]. Similarly, exam- ples of summaries and practical guidelines to implement soundscape design (or preservation) actions do not appear frequently in landscape or urban planning and design literature [11,12]. Therefore, there is an overall need to collect comprehensive information on implementations of soundscape-related measures worldwide and to expand knowledge on soundscape case studies and examples to the prac- titioner communities (e.g., planners and designers), beyond the academic/research context.

2. AIMS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE “CATALOGUE OF SOUNDSCAPE INTER- VENTSIONS” PROJECT

The general aim of the Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions project is to develop a data collection tool and to create a knowledge base of sites and places around the world where specific measures have been put in place to a) design and/or curate the acoustic environment and its corresponding soundscape or b) to inform the future development of soundscape design and practice. These will be achieved by pursuing the following objectives and according to the corresponding Work Packages (WP): WP1 - Website and Data Collection Tool: • Developing a tool for data collection • Creating an online catalogue of soundscape design examples WP2 - Soundscape Design Taxonomy: • Identifying recurring intervention patterns and levels • Defining a taxonomy of soundscape strategies • Releasing a technical report WP3 - Outreach and Impact: • Raising awareness on the benefits of soundscape design • Bridging academia and industry • Dissemination of research findings in conferences and journals

worm 2022

3. THE CSI PLATFORM FOR COLLECTION OF SOUNDSCAPE INTERVENTIONS

3.1. General platform architecture To collect and disseminate data on soundscape projects/intervention/sites, the Catalogue of Sound- scape Interventions website (https://soundscape-intervention.org/ ) was set up and launched in early 2022. The website is both an online repository to catalogue and showcase existing soundscape inter- ventions and a data collection tool for new entries. The rationale behind selecting a website as a platform is to provide a comprehensible, easily and openly accessible medium that is not only limited to the research/academic soundscape community, but also reaches out to professionals, practitioners, local communities and the general public, reinforcing the aspect of public participation and facilitat- ing networking. The website is divided into two main parts, the catalogue (“Catalogue” tab) and the submission form (“Submit” tab). The main purpose of the catalogue is to provide an overview of all identified sound- scape projects/interventions/sites across the globe. To enhance navigation, a custom world map was created to pinpoint the exact location of the identified soundscape projects/interventions/sites, using longitudinal and latitudinal reference data, see Figure 1. The map was integrated using the openly available Google My Maps API and will continually be populated with new data as the catalogue grows. Each individual entry has its own dedicated subpage, providing more detailed information, e.g., regarding the background and context of the project/interventions/site, its date of implementa- tion, observations made and supplementary material, such as audios, pictures and publications. De- pending on the amount and quality of information available, the scope of these subpages may vary considerably. To make it easier to browse through the entries, e.g., by use of specific keywords, a search field (“search intervention”) has been included.

worm 2022

Figure 1: Screenshot of the website (https://soundscape-intervention.org/catalogue/), showing an

excerpt of catalogued soundscape interventions (map + list).

» Pant es » stan an igs cae

The function of the submission form is to collect data on existing soundscape projects/interven- tions/sites worldwide in a single repository, especially those which have not been documented other- wise, and to thereby centralize this process. Some “archetypical” examples of soundscape interven- tions have been included on the website to indicate how to report a soundscape intervention and to highlight the broad range of potential interventions, see Figure 1. The main objective of the Nauener Platz soundscape project [13], a formerly neglected park in a social flashpoint of Berlin, was to im- prove the quality of life for residents by rebuilding a public space. To achieve this, combined meth- ods, such as soundwalks, acoustic measurements, recordings and expert interviews were used to cap- ture the character of the sonic environment and identify potential problems. The redesign included the installation of a gabion wall to mitigate traffic sounds, as well as audio islands playing naturalistic sounds to provide locations of optional distraction. A particular emphasis lied in integrating all rele- vant opinions into the redesign and involving the local community throughout the entire process. In Gainesville, Florida a soundscape case study was conducted as part of a site analysis for a proposed sustainable, urban village, aiming to improve transportation, infrastructure and urban development in the area [14]. Diverse strategies were used to explore the acoustic landscape, such as soundwalks, acoustic measurements, recordings, focus group discussions with various stakeholders, acoustical mapping and modelling. As a result, three categories of acoustical interventions were implemented to improve the sonic environment: mitigation of negative sounds (e.g. reduction of mixed traffic flow, encouragement of alternative transportation forms), preservation of desirable sounds (e.g. erection of barriers, promotion of zone activities) and addition of new acoustical elements to encourage design goals for the project (e.g., import of soundmarks, neutral or natural sounds, introduction of quiet areas) Employing acoustics as a means of engaging the public to interact with its environment and to make a public space more dynamic and enjoyable, is a strategy observed in parks since the 19 th cen- tury. A Pavilion of Echo(es) was erected in a public park, Maksimir in Zagreb, Croatia, featuring a ceiling structure above a tiled floor, specially designed to produce a characteristic flutter echo effect, inviting by-passers and children to play and investigate the phenomenon [15]. The submission form can be filled out by any user visiting the website, without the need of registra- tion. All entries are identifiable by a unique ID (ascending number) and collected in an online data- base, which can later be exported to offline formats. The threshold for the data collection process has been kept purposefully low to encourage use of the website and submission form, especially in early stages. The submission form consists of 18 items, 14 of which collect information on the soundscape project/intervention/site, such as its name/title, location, its implementation date and status, a basic description, the reasoning behind it, involved parties and target audiences, methods/strategies used and observations made, see Figure 2. The form items are a mix of commonly used questionnaire item types, including open text fields, drop down lists and single- or multiple-choice check boxes. While most of the items are optional, the provision of a name, location, basic description and information on the implementation date and status of the project/intervention/site is a minimum requirement for successful entry and therefore mandatory. The submitting party is also required to upload visual or audio material of the project/intervention/site and to confirm that no third-party copyrights are in- fringed when sharing this information. The provision of visual or audio information is necessary for two reasons. First, to enable verification of the project’s/interventions’/site’s existence and second, to generate material for the catalogue. In regular, predefined intervals, submitted entries are exported to an offline format following submis- sion and undergo a manual review process, see Figure 3. After the export, the first step in this task chain is a quality screen to check whether entries match the required criteria for inclusion into the

worm 2022

catalogue or not (see section 3.2). Inadmissible entries are excluded from further review and are con- sequently removed from the database. If the entry is not blatantly inadmissible, but fails to meet quality standards and legal requirements, the submitting party is contacted and asked to resubmit the entry with revised information. Entries that pass the screening are qualitatively analyzed (see section 3.2) and published on the website.

worm 2022

sseveuntatnct sees Saundincapa ination * Ete eaetinofwervns © ja > __Bitat description of inarvant ieee Co easyer ae ORE eS aomNcrEemnnenoatrgne HEH ell nna os ‘Datalled aourdacapa riragie ns ev annane ama ReCRSG ogee sey oun Sugsrorrya ameenewinesinn ty aNoY Ir USAR aemER ERTIES ote wren = ‘hate of implementation © Ielaora wn parelpunis Iniiaeen an parieinanee cca tbo enc enn Sabat ope gS ‘Hye, wu Ineo? Fyre ons Ciseehieann isan, Usa ‘hasreanon. ste mgdornae: at on Hoesen ean os Seen ny Teton ante aneobaeiabe an: HE SaSEaTER Ee CIEE aS ears Us arvana 4a hi intervention been dc Hearbe ean cit re WI

Figure 2: Screenshot of the submission form (https://soundscape-intervention.org/submissions/).

Figure 3: Schematic representation of the review process.

SUBMISSION I> BATABPORT Sm CONTACT USER + RESUBMIT INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AKE/INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT POOR METADATA QUALITY urucare AUTHORSHIP/COPYRIGHTS LUNVERIFABLE LOCATION pee SE

3.2. Criteria for describing a soundscape intervention The main review process consists of two steps: screening and criteria identification. A checklist with a binary (0/1) rating system is used in both cases to simplify and standardize the process and to ensure objectivity across raters. The screening checklist consists of a total of eight items, phrased as yes-or- no questions, see Table 1. For further consideration in the review process, the first four questions (items 1-4) have to be rated affirmatively (1), otherwise the entry is marked as inadmissible, leading to its removal from the database. This is the case with fake or inappropriate submissions, duplicates, invalid contact information and unverifiable locations. If one or more of the remaining questions (items 5-8) are rated with “0”, e.g., due to incomplete information, poor audiovisual quality or unclear authorship and copyrights, but the entry is generally admissible based on the first four items, the user is contacted and asked to resubmit. Table 1: Screening check list; each item receives a 0-1 score depending on whether the criterion is met or not.

Topic Item # Checklist item

Basic Information

Contact 1 Has the submitting party provided real contact information?

Content 2 Is the data free of any harmful/inappropriate/offensive content?

Soundscape name 3 Does the soundscape project/intervention have an identifiable name/title?

Soundscape location 4 Has an exact location of the project/intervention been provided?

Indicators 5 Is it clear who has initiated the project/intervention?

Date 6 Is it clear when the project/intervention was initiated/carried out?

Metadata

Audio/picture 7 Does the provided audio/picture data have adequate quality?

Copyright 8 Is author- and ownership of the provided audio/picture data clear?

While the screening checklist is used to preprocess data and to sift out inadmissible entries, the criteria identification checklist is used for qualitative data analysis. In lack of a common nomenclature for the definition of a “soundscape intervention”, the first step in this analysis is to document how the term is understood by different communities, not only on a theoretical basis, but by taking a closer look at real-world examples. This may not only facilitate a better understanding of potential defini- tions, but also uncover frequent/recurring situations and strategies. Following these findings, the sec- ond step is to derive criteria that qualify a project/site as a “soundscape intervention” and to then

worm 2022

establish a taxonomy, based on quality indicators. Deriving such criteria and developing quality in- dicators is a work in progress and therefore the criteria identification checklist presented here should be understood as a first attempt at homogenization, which is prone to change. The criteria identification checklist consists of seven items, phrased as yes-or-no questions and re- spectively rated with “1” or “0”, see Table 2. In future, a more fine-grained scoring system may be introduced, depending on the elaborateness of the entries submitted. These seven items address dif- ferent methodological aspects of the project/intervention/site, e.g. its background, its aims and objec- tives, the strategies and data collection methods used, the level of public involvement, its outcomes and its evaluation by the scientific community. Unlike the screening list, no cut-off score has to be achieved for inclusion into the catalogue. The items are added up cumulatively with a high score indicating higher quality (max. 7). This scoring is used for internal purposes only and is not published on the website. Table 2: Criteria identification check list; each item receives a 0-1 score depending on whether the criterion is met or not.

Criteria Item # Checklist item

Methodology (Quality Indicators)

Background 1 Has the reasoning/background for the project/intervention been sufficiently explained?

Aims & Objectives 2 Are the aims and objectives of the project/intervention clear?

Methods 3 Have typical soundscape strategies been used to carry out the pro- ject/intervention?

Data collection 4 Has data been collected with standardized methods?

Public involvement 5 Has the public been involved? i.e. advisory/cooperative/user-led involvement

Outcome 6 Has the outcome of the project/intervention been documented?

Peer review 7 Has the project/intervention been reported in peer-reviewed jour- nals?

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this paper, we presented the preliminary stage of the project called “Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions” (CSI). The rationale for this project is to provide a tool for data collection and com- munication and to streamline the process of selecting examples of projects/interventions/sites of cul- tural valence in public spaces around the world that are meaningful in terms of soundscape approach and are directly or indirectly driven by it. The ultimate goal is observing frequent/recurring situations or strategies that can lead to a general definition of “soundscape intervention”. These can then be collated into a “design toolkit” and formulate “design briefs” that local authorities will be using to communicate with soundscape consultants/researchers. Furthermore, based on the collected data, the

worm 2022

project aims to develop a taxonomy of soundscape design, indicating potential layers and levels of classification, e.g. type of intervention (conservation/preservation actions as opposed to active mod- ifications of the acoustic environment), degree of public involvement, duration and prominence of intervention, effects on users etc. A “design toolkit” and a taxonomy, developed based on data re- flecting successful measures implemented in many countries around the world, may also become an informative source for the standardization process currently taking place within the ISO 12913 series. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the HEAD-Genuit Foundation for funding the project “ Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions (CSI)”. The UCL authors are also supported by the European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant (no. 740696) on “Soundscape Indices” (SSID). 6. REFERENCES

1. Kang, J., & Aletta, F. (2018). The Impact and Outreach of Soundscape Research. Environments,

5 (5), 58. doi:10.3390/environments5050058 2. Schulte-Fortkamp, B., & Fiebig, A. (2006). Soundscape analysis in a residental area: An

evaluation of noise and people's mind. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 92 (6), 875-880. 3. European Parliament and Council. (2002). Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and

management of environmental noise. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. 4. European Environment Agency. (2014). Good practice guide on quiet areas. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union. 5. European Environment Agency. (2016). Quiet Areas in Europe - The environment unaffected by

noise pollution. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2800/7586 6. Welsh Government. (2018). Noise and Soundscape Action Plan 2018-2023. Cardiff: Ministry of

Environment. 7. 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. 8. Aletta, F., & Xiao, J. (2018). What are the Current Priorities and Challenges for (Urban)

Soundscape Research? Challenges, 9 (1), 16. doi:doi:10.3390/challe9010016 9. Lavia, L., Dixon, M., Witchel, H. J., & Goldsmith, M. (2015). Applied soundscape practices. In

J. Kang, & B. Schulte-Fortkamp (Eds.), Soundscape and the Built Environment. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 10. Kang, J., Aletta, F., Gjestland, T. T., Brown, L. A., Botteldooren, D., Schulte-Fortkamp, B., . . .

Lavia, L. (2016). Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment. Building and Environment, 108 , 284-294. 11. Cerwén, G., Wingren, C., & Qviström, M. (2017). Evaluating soundscape intentions in landscape

architecture: a study of competition entries for a new cemetery in Järva, Stockholm. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60 (7), 1253-1275. 12. Cerwén, G. (2019). Listening to Japanese Gardens: An Autoethnographic Study on a Tool for

Soundscape Design. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (23), 4648. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234648 13. Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Jordan, P. (2016). When soundscape meets architecture, Noise Mapping

3(1) , 216-231, doi:10.1515/noise-2016-0015 14. Seibein, G.W., Kwon, Y., Smitthakom, P. and Gold, M.A., 2006, December. Case study of sound-

scape assessment and design methods. In INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Con- ference Proceedings (Vol. 2006, No. 2, pp. 4418-4424). Institute of Noise Control

worm 2022

15. Oberman, T., Jambrošić, K., Horvat, M. and Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci, B. (2020). Using Virtual

Soundwalk Approach for Assessing Sound Art Soundscape Interventions in Public Spaces. Ap- plied Sciences, 10(6): 2102

worm 2022