Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:46:16.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Urban Soundscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2011

Solène Marry
Solène Marry*
Affiliation:
Laboratory Pacte (Public policies, Political action, Territories) Territoire UMR CNRS 5194, Town Planning Institute of Grenoble; CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment) Grenoble; 24 rue Joseph Fourier, 38400 Saint-Martin d'Hères, FRANCE
*
E-mails: solene.marry@cstb.fr and smarry@urba-co.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the different tools for assessing soundscapes within urban public spaces and develops in particular the use of the sonic mind map. We will successively define the notions of sonic perception and representation, and sonic and spatial evaluation; we will approach the concept of soundscape and finally give details about the sonic mind-map tool. Through this tool, the soundscape of urban public spaces can be understood, not through speech analysis, but through spatial representations of memorised sonic ambiances.

Investigation results based among other things on sonic mind-map analyses explain the significance of sonic spatialisation and of the sound source distance in urban soundscape assessment. Using the sonic mind map to analyse the sonic representations associated with certain urban spaces seems to be relevant for researchers in space sciences or even for urban planners.

Type
Research Article
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 16 , Issue 3: Sound, Listening and Place I , December 2011 , pp. 245 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AFSSE. 2004. Impacts sanitaires du bruit: État des lieux: Indicateurs bruit-santé. Paris: Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale.Google Scholar
Amphoux, P. 1996. Au seuil de l'audible. Grenoble: CRESSON.Google Scholar
Amphoux, P. 2003. Ambiances urbaines et espaces publics. In G. Carpon and N. Haschar-Noé (eds.), L'espace public en question: Usages, ambiances et participation citoyenne. Toulouse: Université Toulouse Le Mirail, 50–56.Google Scholar
Augoyard, J.-F. 1991. La vue est-elle souveraine dans l'esthétique paysagère? Le Débat 65 (May–August): 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augoyard, J.-F., Torgue, H. 1995. A l’écoute de l'environnement sonore: Répertoire des effets sonores. Marseilles: Parenthèses.Google Scholar
Bangjun, Z., Lili, S., Guoqing, D. 2003. The Influence of the Visibility of the Source on the Subjective Annoyance Due to its Noise. Applied Acoustics 64: 1205–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besse, J. 2009. Le goût du monde: Exercices de paysage. Paris: Actes Sud/ENSP.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J., Passeron, J. 1983. Le métier de sociologue. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Brunet, R. 2001. Les mots de la géographie: Dictionnaire critique. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Buytendijk, F.J.J. 1958. L'homme et l'animal: Essai de psychologie comparée. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Casati, R., Dokic, J. 1994. La philosophie du son. Paris: Éditions Jacqueline Chambon.Google Scholar
Couic, M.-C. 2000. La dimension intersensorielle dans la pratique de l'espace urbain: Une approche méthodologique pluridisciplinaire. Grenoble and Nantes: Écoles d'Architecture de Grenoble et de Nantes.Google Scholar
Cox, T. 2008. Scraping Sounds and Disgusting Noises. Applied Acoustics 69: 1195–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRESSON. 1991. La qualité sonore des espaces habités. Grenoble: CRESSON.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1901. Meditations on First Philosophy. In The Method, Meditations and Philosophy of Descartes, trans. John Veitch. Washington, DC and London: M. Walter Dunne.Google Scholar
Faburel, G., Gourlot, N. 2009. Référentiel national pour la définition et la création des zones calmes. A destination des collectivités locales. Paris: Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement et de l'Aménagement Durables, Direction de la Prévention des Pollutions et des Risques – Mission Bruit.Google Scholar
Fekih, K. 2006. Le Parcours sonore: De la construction urbaine aux constructions mentales. Doctoral thesis under the direction of Yves Chalas. CRESSON/Institut d'urbanisme de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Frize, N. 2002. Des yeux qui n'entendent pas. Le Visiteur 8: 88–104.Google Scholar
Ge, J., Hokao, K. 2005. Applying the Methods of Image Evaluation and Spatial Analysis to Study the Sound Environment of Urban Street Areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godin, C., Mühlethaler, L. 2005. Edifier: L'architecture et le lieu. Paris: Verbier.Google Scholar
Goodey, B. 1977. Sensing the Environment. Bulletin of Environmental Education 1(2): 3–10.Google Scholar
Guski, R. 1999. Personal and Social Variables as Co-Determinants of Noise Annoyance. Noise & Health 1(3): 45–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Leobon, A. 1986. Analyse psycho-acoustique du paysage sonore urbain. Strasburg: Université Louis Pasteur.Google Scholar
Lévy, J., Lussault, M. 2003. Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l'espace des sociétés. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
López, F. 1997. Schizophonia vs l'Objet Sonore: Soundscapes and Artistic Freedom. http://www.franciscolopez.net/schizo.html (accessed on 19 August 2011).Google Scholar
Lopez Barrio, I., Carles, J. 1995. Acoustic Dimensions of Inhabited Areas: Quality Criteria. The Soundscape Newsletter 10: 6–8.Google Scholar
Lynch, K. 1960. Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maffiolo, V. 1999. De la caractérisation sémantique et acoustique de la qualité sonore de l'environnement urbain. Le Mans: Le Maine.Google Scholar
Miedema, H.M., Vos, H. 1999. Demographic and Attitudinal Factors that Modify Annoyance from Transportation Noise. Acoustical Society of America 105(6): 3336–3344.Google Scholar
Moch, A., Maramotti, I. 1995. Les Ambiances de la ville: Du stress au confort. Pratiques Psychologiques 2: 17–25.Google Scholar
Moles, A. 1972. Théorie de l'information et perception esthétique. Paris: Denoël/Gonthier.Google Scholar
Moser, G., Weiss, K. 2003. Espaces de vie. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Paquette, D. 2004a. Describing the Contemporary Sound Environment: An Analysis of Three Approaches, their Synthesis, and a Case Study. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Paquette, D. 2004b. Describing the Contemporary Sound Environment: An Analysis of Three Approaches, their Synthesis, and a Case Study of Commercial Drive, Vancouver, BC. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, http://www.sharawadji.org/thesis.Google Scholar
Parlitz, D., Colonius, H. 1993. Effects of Visual Stimulation on Auditory Detection. In A. Schick (ed.) Contributions to Psychological Acoustics VI. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag, 387–395.Google Scholar
Raimbault, M., Dubois, D. 2005. Urban Soundscapes: Experiences and Knowledge. Cities 22(5): 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rémy, N. 2001. Maîtrise et prédictibilité de la qualité sonore du projet architectural: Applications aux espaces publics en gare. Nantes: École polytechnique de l'Université de Nantes.Google Scholar
Roulier, F. 2007. Pour une géographie des milieux sonores. Cybergeo. Available at: http://cybergeo.revues.org/5034?lang=en (accessed on 15 August 2011).Google Scholar
Sanoff, H. 1991. Visual Research Methods in Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traité des objets musicaux. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Schafer, R. 1977. The Tuning of the World. Toronto, ON: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
Sherrington, C.S. 1906. The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Southworth, M. 1969. The Sonic Environment of Cities. Environment and Behavior 1: 49–70.Google Scholar
Stein, B., Meredith, M. 1993. The Merging of the Senses. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thibaud, J.-P. 2001. La méthode des parcours commentés. In M. Grosjean and J.-P. Thibaud (eds.) L'Espace urbain en méthodes. Marseilles: Parenthèses, 79–100.Google Scholar
Tomatis, A. 1974. Vers l’écoute humaine. Thiron: ESF.Google Scholar
Viollon, S., Lavandier, C., Drake, C. 2002. Influence of Visual Setting on Sound Ratings in an Urban Environment. Applied Acoustics 63(5): 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vroomen, J., De Gelder, B. 2000. Sound Enhances Visual Perception: Cross-Modal Effects of Auditory Organisation on Vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology 26(5): 1583–1590.Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, W., Kang, J. 2005. Acoustic Comfort Evaluation in Urban Open Public Spaces. Applied Acoustics 66(2): 211–229.Google Scholar