Current Pollution Reports

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-018-0094-8

NOISE POLLUTION (P ZANNIN, SECTION EDITOR)

A Review of Socio-acoustic Surveys for Soundscape Studies

Margret Sibylle Engel 1,2 & André Fiebig 3 & Carmella Pfaffenbach 1 & Janina Fels 2

# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Purpose of Review This article reviews the literature and presents the current status of the use of socio-acoustic surveys in
soundscape studies, through the indication of appropriate question formats, types, and topics for each data collection method
(soundwalks, interviews, listening tests, and focus group) for the involved public and acoustic stimuli.
Recent Findings The ISO 12913-2 establishes ways of data collection and reporting requirements for soundscape studies
(International Organization for Standartization 2017), including the triangulation technique. This standard recommends some
data collection methods, like soundwalks and interviews. Even so, some authors are using different methods to collect data, such
as focus group and listening tests.
Summary This study investigated through 52 peer-reviewed papers published on the last 20 years the current status of socio-
acoustic studies regarding question topics and types, used stimuli, and characteristics about the participants, using the four major
adopted data collection methods in soundscape studies: soundwalks, interviews, listening tests, and focus group. Some topics like
Bsoundscape quality^ and Bsound sources identification and evaluation^ are common in the recent studies, as well as the adoption
of some question types such as semantic differential scale, the staple scale, and ranking order scale.

Keywords Soundscape . Socio-acoustic survey . Soundwalks . Interviews . Listening tests

Introduction sounds may include natural and anthropological sources

The concept of soundscape exists over 50 years, started with
studies from Murray Schafer about acoustic ecology and
through the establishment of the World Soundscape Project.
The project aimed to draw attention to the sonic environment
through a course about noise pollution. Due to the negative
approach related to this type of pollution, a more positive
perspective started to be investigated.
Initially, Schafer described soundscape as a combination of
sounds which leads to an environmental immersion. The
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Noise Pollution
* Margret Sibylle Engel
margretengel@yahoo.com
1
Geography Department, RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen, Germany
2
Institute of Technical Acoustics, Medical Acoustics Group, RWTH
Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
3
HEAD acoustics GmbH, Herzogenrath, Germany
[1, 2]. In 1998 Schafer presented his ideas about soundscape
in the Swedish conference about acoustic ecology
BStockholm, Hey listen!^ Brigitta Berglund and Tor
Kilhman got inspired by the concept of soundscape presented
by Murray Schaffer, and launched a research program named
as BSoundscape Support to Health^ in 1999. Under this pro-
gram, the Swedish Soundscape-Quality Protocol was devel-
oped, which consists of a model for measuring the soundscape
quality [3]. In 2002, Emily Thompson inspired by the work of
Alain Corbin defined the soundscape as an auditory or aural
landscape [4].
During the following years, Lercher and Schulte-
Fortkamp, according to the EU-Directive 2002, started a de-
bate about the relevance of the soundscape research related to
noise annoyance, due to the limited variance of the standard
dose-response curve and the variation from location to loca-
tion. The implications of noise in a community and a rein-
forcement of the concept of sound quality in soundscape stud-
ies were considered [5]. In 2008, the Positive Soundscape
Project started with the aim Bto acknowledge the relevance
of positive soundscapes, to move away from a focus on neg-
ative noise and to identify means whereby the concept of

positive soundscapes can effectively be incorporated into
planning.^ In addition, the relationship between acoustic/
auditory responses and behavioral characteristics were also
reevaluated [6, 7]. Since 2009, a great scientific effort at EU
COST TUD Action TD0804 (Soundscape of European Cities
and Landscapes) was established the soundscape paradigm
shift, considering first human and social sciences and then
physics but also taking into account cultural aspects. The EU
COST Action had also collaborations from other networks,
including Global Sustainable Soundscape Network (GSSN)
from the USA, other four COST Actions, EU projects like
HOSSANA and SONORUS, moreover EU networks like
ENNAH and the UK Noise Future network [8, 9].
Over time, the concept of soundscape became more com-
prehensive, referring to the way in which people consciously
perceive their environment, involving interdisciplinary efforts,
which includes physical, social, cultural, psychological, and
architectural aspects, especially in urban environments [10,
11]. In 2008, the ISO Technical Committee 43, Sub
Committee 1 BNoise^ decided to support the proposal for
creation of a Soundscape Standard. In 2009, the working
group WG54 convened by Östen Axelsson, one of the respon-
sible of the Swedish Soundscape-Quality Protocol, started
work on a soundscape standard proposal [3], concatenating
concepts and levels of understanding of soundscape [12].
The result of these interdisciplinary efforts leaded to the inter-
national standards ISO 12913-1 which establishes the sound-
scape definition and a conceptual framework for soundscape
studies [11]. Additionally, the ISO 12913-2, related to data
collection and reporting requirements for soundscape studies,
was stated [13]. Some methods are regulated in this standard,
such as the triangulation technique, wherein two or more
methods are used to verify in a double (or triple) check the
results [13, 14]. The definition of soundscape presented in the
ISO 12913-1 also includes the aspect of context, which sug-
gests that the soundscape is the Bacoustic environment as per-
ceived and understood, by people, in context^ [3, 9, 11].
Environmental studies have shown that the soundscape of
urban areas is an important aspect for the comfort of people in
general [15, 16]. The association between sound quality of an
environment and comfort has been often discussed during the
last decade. Initially, only sound level indicators were ana-
lyzed and over time the concept of sound quality was expand-
ed, as people became aware of the new dimensions of sound,
such as (1) the compatibility of response to stimuli, (2) to what
extent sound is pleasing, and (3) the possibility of identifying
sounds or sound sources [17, 18].
In order to assess the soundscape quality, descriptors [19],
frameworks [20], and methodologies for data collection, such
as soundwalks [21], listening tests [22], interviews [23, 24],
and focus groups [25], were developed.
The practice of the soundwalk method were started by two
distinct groups: the World Soundscape Project by Murray
Curr Pollution Rep
Schafer, creator of the term acoustic ecology [26]; and by a
study of sound environments established through Francois
Augoyard, author of Pas à pas: Essai sur le cheminement
quotidien en milieu urbain, at the research center CRESSON
in Grenoble, France [27].
The soundwalk method relies on a method of conscious
listening of the sonic environment and it helps to reveal the
multisensory structure of our relationship with the world [28,
29]. The soundwalk procedure is a widely adopted sound-
scape evaluation method which allows qualitative and quanti-
tative data collection as multimodal experience [30–33]. The
soundwalk procedures can differ in many aspects [30, 34].
With regards to quantitative data collection, the differences
occur mainly when it refers to acoustical measurements
(e.g., monaural-binaural, duration, measurement position, se-
lection of different periods, days and seasons, etc.) and collec-
tion of visual information (e.g., pictures, videos). Related to
qualitative data, the procedures vary in the way of
questioning, the sampling of participants, sample size,
soundwalk duration, and instructions (e.g., level of attention
directed towards sounds, emphasis on multi-modality) [30,
32, 34]. Normally a soundwalk is conducted by a group of
people or can be done individually, following a predefined
walking route and using a structured protocol which enables
the sonic evaluation as well as to collect context-sensitive data
[29, 34, 35].
Interviews are common evaluation methods to assess the
acoustic environment. These methods are used for decades
with the purpose of the evaluation of environmental noise,
annoyance related to traffic sound sources and noise pollution
[36]. This method was adapted according to the purpose relat-
ed to the soundscape, which includes sound quality [37–39],
welfare restoration through the sonic environment [40], and
willingness to pay for noise control measures to improve the
sound quality and the environmental health [41]. It can be
applied in different data collection situations, such as interac-
tions with the following: residents in their homes [42–44];
users’ of the evaluated urban space (parks, squares, etc.) [33,
38, 40]; and workers in their working environment [44, 45]. It
is a method which also allows the interaction between endog-
enous or exogenous interactors and the environment [37].
Listening tests are laboratory experiments which aim to
perform sound evaluations under controlled conditions, sepa-
rating factors which could influence directly and indirectly on
the auditory perception [46]. Normally in soundscape studies,
listening tests are widely used to evaluate the influence of
visual aspects by experiments with and without the aid of
visual material [47]. For this purpose, reproduction systems
are often used to recreate outdoor soundscapes. This method
requests a special consideration of the influence on partici-
pants’ responses, regarding the immersion in the sonic envi-
ronment [48, 49]. The subjects can include listeners with no
experience [25], students and academic staff [49–52], experts
Curr Pollution Rep
in acoustics [53] and aleatory persons recruited per email [54].
In order to interpret the collected data comprehensively the
determination of the hearing abilities of the participants is
recommended.
Focus groups are an additional modality adopted in the
Positive Soundscape Project and aim a simple discussion on
a specific issue facilitated by a researcher. Some topics can
emerge allowing the capture of detailed and relatively unbi-
ased opinions. It allows a reflective state of mind on the par-
ticipants about the previously experienced soundscapes, and it
helps on the expression of ideas as well as the potential repro-
duction of agreed group responses [25, 55, 56].
The aim of this study is to present the current status of the
use of socio-acoustic surveys in soundscape studies for the
involved public and acoustic stimuli, through appropriate
question formats, types, and topics for each data collection
method (e.g., soundwalks, interviews, listening tests, and fo-
cus group).
Questions Type and Answers Format
With the increase of the interest on the perception-based eval-
uations related to acoustic environments several question-
naires have been developed with a wide variety of questions
and answers options. To standardize language, question for-
mats, and response options, the standard ISO 15666 from
2003, in the context of noise annoyance, was developed which
allows the assessment of noise annoyance by means of social
and socio-acoustic surveys [23]. In soundscape studies, this
standard helped on the formulation of questions related to
noise annoyance and as a framework for socio-acoustic sur-
veys in studies which involved soundwalks [40], interviews
[40, 47], and listening tests [47]. Some tools are widely used
in socio-acoustic surveys for the description of the soundscape
quality, as follows:
a) Demographic questions/scale are designed to help sur-
vey researchers determine what factors may influence a
respondent’s answers, interests, and opinions. Collecting
demographic information will enable you to cross-
tabulate and compare subgroups to see how responses
vary between these groups [57].
b) Open-ended questions also are known as unstructured of
free-response questions; it is not possible to predict the
responses and preferences. This type of question helps to
know the terminology that people use as a response. The
common uses of open-ended questions include the rating
of preferences using the respondent words; spontaneous
description of places, situations, feelings, and sound at-
tributes; reasons for rating choices; justification of certain
responses; and spontaneous description of wishes for
certain visual and sound attributes. There are some
drawbacks of using open-ended questions such as re-
spondents have some difficulties to recognize how they
feel, especially when it is asked about negative feelings.
It is common that the respondent will answer often
Bnothing^ or Bdo not know.^ Sometimes the interpreta-
tion of questions can lead to a misunderstanding. Without
the help of a given answer list, the respondent is answer-
ing according to his/her interpretation. In this case, the
question formulation should be really clear. It can be
time-consuming and relatively expensive to process and
analyze open-ended question responses [58, 59].
c) Closed-ended questions use forced choices and are pref-
erable to ask a respondent to agree or disagree with a
single statement. A middle alternative should generally
be offered, except when measuring the intensity and an
explicit Bno opinion^ option should be offered as well
[60, 61].
d) Multiple choice questions are using a scale where there
are several answers from which one is to be chosen.
Multiple choice questions are good for assessing lower
order cognitive processes, such as the recall of factual
information, at the expense of higher level critical and
creative reasoning processes [62].
e) The semantic differential scale is a seven-point scale
using pairs of adjectives or phrases, which are opposite
in meaning. The respondent must choose the option that
most closely reflects their feelings [63]; it helps to mea-
sure the meaning of quantitative measurements, with a
connotation of something nonmaterial, like a Bsoul^ or
Bidea^ of an observed stimulus. This scale is a linguistic
encoding as an index of the meaning of
observations(Fig. 1) [64].
f) The visual-analogue scale is a scale composed by a 10-
cm-long line, which the respondents have to rate with an
Bx^ indicating the position of the scale which better ex-
presses their opinion about perception responses. In each
extremity of the line, there are opposite adjectives. This
type of scale can translate an opinion in a metric value
[65], presenting more exact results, leading narrow con-
fidence intervals and higher power in statistical tests
(Fig. 2) [66].
g) The staple scale is a substitute for the semantic differen-
tial scale when it is difficult to construct pairs of bipolar
adjectives. Respondents have to rate the correspondent
adjective with increasing or decreasing positive and neg-
ative numbers [63]. This scaling uses up to 10-point
scale (Fig. 3) [67].
h) The rating scale is the most often used interchangeably
Likert-type scale. It is a scaling procedure that offers the
respondents the opportunity to express their opinion in a
continuum that starts from a low negative response to a
high positive response [68]. This scale is ideal for ordi-
nal data, as well as interval data level [69] (Fig. 4).

Fig. 1 Semantic differential scale example
i) The verbal rating scale is similar to Kerlinger’s category
rating scale, the respondent is asked to pick out from
several categories the one that represents the characteris-
tic of the rated item [70] (Fig. 4).
j) Rank order scale is an option where the respondent ranks
items in an order of importance according to their pref-
erence, generating an ordinal data. Rank order is a real-
istic representation of choice behavior (Fig. 5) [71, 72].
k) Dichotomous answers have two possible nominal an-
swers, e.g., yes/no, true/false, or agree/disagree. They
are used for clear distinction of qualities, experiences,
or respondent’s opinions [73, 74],
l) Thurstone scale is an attitude scale in which the items are
equally appearing in intervals. The Thurstone scale con-
sists of a series of attitude statements and the respondent
should indicate if agree or disagree with the statement. It
is given a value to the statement, equal to the median of all
given ratings by the respondent. The statements with high
levels of agreement between the judges are selected [75].
m) Checklists are a type of rating scale where the respondents
record attributes and particular observed behaviors [76].
Checklists are useful for reminding us about all of the
varied factors that may be important. The items of check-
lists are independent and unconnected [77].
Methods
For this study, we realized a wide literature research through
search engines like Google Scholar, Pub-Med, SCOPUS,
Taylor and Francis, Springer, Wiley online library, Elsevier,
ResearchGate, and Academia. We focused on 52 journal pa-
pers published over the last 20 years which matched with the
keywords Bsocio-acoustic surveys,^ Bsoundscape,^
Bsoundwalk,^ Binterviews + soundscape,^ and Blistening tests
+ soundscape.^
To have a reliable systematic review, it was adopted the
PRISMA diagram flow methodology [78]. The total amount
of identified papers on those search engines, with the reported
keywords above, was 75,692. After paper revisions, it was
added extra 90 papers on the total amount of identified papers.
Due to papers duplicates, 35,666 papers have been removed
from the total amount. From this amount, just 220 papers have
been screened and due to exclusion criteria, 131 papers were
Fig. 2 Visual-analogue scale example
Curr Pollution Rep
excluded (Fig. 6). The criteria for selection of those papers
were: manuscripts published in peer review journals, works
related to soundscape or to community noise studies, clear
indication of questions type and content, as well as reported
sound stimuli assessed, sample size, subjects characteristics,
and indication of one of the selected data collection methods
(soundwalks, interviews, listening tests, or focus group).
Eighty-nine papers were eligible for this study after proving
of criteria. Six papers have been removed due to an incom-
plete set of criteria. From the amount of 83 papers, 52 are
presented in the meta-analysis (Table 1) and 31 papers are
reported in the introduction, with the aim of presenting an
overview of soundscape studies reported on the last 40 years.
Table 1 shows a resume of the literature research elaborated
as the object of this study. For each selected published manu-
script, we are indicating the reference (author/year); location,
where the studies were conducted; adopted methodology for
data collection (soundwalk—SW, listening test—LT, inter-
view—INT, focus group—FG); sample size and composition;
question types classified according to responses types [112];
the main topics in the questions content; and sound stimuli
heard by the respondents during each study (Table 1).
Figures 7 and 8 are showing the distribution of questions
topics and types, for each data collection method respectively.
Soundwalks
From the 52 consulted journal papers, 13 adopted soundwalks
as a data collection method [25, 30, 33, 37, 38, 40, 50, 79–83,
85] (Fig. 7). Regarding questions topics from the evaluated
studies, the soundwalks studies encompassed the following:
Bsoundscape expectation,^ 3 studies [25, 79, 83]; Bsoundscape
description, awareness, perception of differences,^ 3 studies
[25, 79, 83]; Bbest soundscape, preference,^ 3 studies [25,
79, 82]; Bsoundscape quality,^ 8 studies [30, 33, 40, 50, 80,
81, 83, 85]; Bsound sources identification,^ 6 studies [37,
79–81, 83, 84]; Bsound sources evaluation, dominance, back-
ground, satisfaction,^ 10 studies [25, 37, 38, 40, 79–84];
Bannoyance, noise sensitivity,^ 2 studies [40, 84];
Benvironmental preference,^ 1 study [79]; Bvisual/location
quality,^ 6 studies [37, 79–81, 83, 84]; Belements which can
influence the soundscape,^ 2 studies [79, 83]; Blocation use
(infrastructure or public transportation),^ 3 studies [25, 79,
Fig. 3 Staple scale example
Curr Pollution Rep

collection method is commonly used when participants are

on-site during their leisure time (park users), or when the
researchers are inviting their colleagues and students to par-
Fig. 4 Rating scale and verbal rating scale example ticipate on the data collection.

82]; Bknowledge about the location,^ 2 studies [25, 37]; Bbest

urban space, preference,^ 2 studies [25, 79]; Bspace valuation,^
Interviews
2 studies [25, 79]; Boverall impression,^ 5 studies [25, 30, 37,
The interview collection method was used in 29 studies from
80, 84]; Bdemographic or socioeconomic information,^ 4 stud-
the total amount of 52 consulted journal papers [33, 37–44,
ies [25, 37, 38, 81]; Bemotional and physical state,^ 1 study
47, 49, 55, 56, 86–101] (Fig. 7). Regarding questions topics
[37]; Bdifficulty from listening experience,^ 1 study [84].
from the evaluated studies, the interviews studies
From these quantities, we conclude that Bsound sources evalu-
encompassed the following: Bsoundscape expectations,^ 2
ation, dominance, background, satisfaction,^ Bsoundscape
studies [88, 100]; Bsoundscape description, awareness, per-
quality,^ Bvisual/location quality,^ Bsound sources
ception of differences,^ 1 study [90]; Bbest soundscape,
identification,^ Boverall impression,^ and Bdemographic and
preference,^ 1 study [99]; Bsoundscape quality,^ 15 studies
socioeconomic information^ are the most investigated topics
[33, 39, 40, 44, 47, 49, 86, 91–93, 96–99, 101]; Bsoundscape
through soundwalks.
memories,^ 3 studies [39, 44, 88]; Bbehaviors influenced by
The sound stimuli heard by the participants were the fol-
the soundscape,^ 2 studies [44, 88]; Bsound sources
lowing: park sources, 10 studies [25, 33, 38, 40, 50, 79–83];
identification,^ 8 studies [37, 41, 86, 89, 95, 96, 99, 100];
shopping areas, 4 studies [25, 30, 50, 79]; indoor spaces, 3
Bsound sources evaluation, dominance, background,
studies [25, 79, 80]; squares, 4 studies [25, 33, 50, 79]; court-
satisfaction,^ 12 studies [37–40, 49, 86, 89, 94, 96,
yards, 1 study [80]; pedestrian area, 1 study [33]; urban
99–101]^; Bannoyance, noise sensitivity,^ 9 studies [39, 40,
stream, 2 studies [30, 37]; and residential area, 1 study [85].
42, 43, 55, 87, 89, 95]; Benvironmental preference,^ 2 studies
Through soundwalks, the main investigated sources were park
[88, 98]; Bvisual/location quality,^ 6 studies [38, 86, 89, 93,
sound sources, squares, and shopping areas sources.
94, 96]; Blocation use (infrastructure, public transportation),^
Regarding question type and rating method, the most fre-
4 studies [42, 95, 99, 101]; Bknowledge about location,^ 4
quently used answering options are open-ended questions, 6
studies [37]; Bspace valuation,^ 2 studies [41, 42]; Boverall
studies [25, 33, 38, 79, 80, 83]; semantic differential scale, 6
impression,^ 4 studies [37, 56, 90, 97]; Bdemographic and
studies [33, 38, 40, 50, 80, 83]; visual-analogue scale, 2 stud-
socioeconomic information,^ 18 studies [37–39, 41–44, 47,
ies [80, 85]; demographic scale, 1 study [81]; staple scale, 4
87, 90, 91, 93, 95–99, 101]; Bemotional and physical
studies [30, 33, 38, 81]; closed-ended questions,1 study [81];
information,^ 2 studies [37, 97]. From these results (Fig. 7)
rating scale, 3 studies [37, 82, 83]; multiple choice questions,
it is possible to conclude that Bdemographic and socioeco-
1 study [83]; rank order scale, 1 study [83]; and dichotomous,
nomic information,^ Bsoundscape quality,^ and Bsound
1 study [37]. Open-ended questions, semantic differential, and
sources evaluation, dominance, background, satisfaction^
staple scales are the most used types of questions used in
are the main topics through interviews as data collection
soundwalks studies (Fig. 8).
method.
The sample size had a big variation from 3 [38] to 580 [82]
The main stimuli studied were sound sources from urban
respondents, and the participation was composed of students
parks, 13 studies [33, 38, 40, 41, 47, 49, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 99,
and academic staff (6 studies) [33, 38, 40, 50, 82, 83], park
101]; traffic sound sources, 9 studies [39, 43, 47, 49, 87, 89,
visitors, and users (3 studies) [80–82]. The age range
92, 93, 100]; sound sources from squares, 5 studies [33, 47,
encompassed from 16 to 66 years old. This kind of data
49, 56, 93]; and residential area sound sources, 3 studies [55,
86, 95]. Other sounds sources were also used as stimuli when
interviews were used as data collection method, such as pe-
destrian area sound sources, 1 study [49]; urban sounds, 2
studies [37, 44, 91]; business area sources, 1 study [86]; rec-
reational area sources, 1 study [86]; cafés sources, 2 studies
[49, 94]; small village sources, 1 study [88]; railway sources, 1
study [39]; leisure activities, 1 study [1]; human activities, 2
studies [92, 101]; natural sounds, 2 studies [92, 93]; children
playing, 1 study [94]; rural sounds, 1 study [97]; industrial
sounds, 1 study [97]; technological sounds,1 study [101];
Fig. 5 Rank order scale example and commercial area sources, 4 studies [86, 92, 94, 97].
 Curr Pollution Rep

Fig. 6 PRISMA flow-diagram

for soundscape studies meta-

Identification
analysis Records identified through Additional records identified
database searching through other sources
(n =75692) (n =90)

Records after duplicates removed

(n =35666)

Screening
Records screened Records excluded
(n =220) (n =131)

Eligibility Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded,

for eligibility with reasons
(n =89) (n =6)

Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n =83)
Included

Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(meta-analysis)
(n =52)

In this type of data collection, open-ended questions, 17 Listening Tests

studies [33, 38, 39, 41–44, 47, 49, 56, 86–89, 94, 98, 101];
semantic differential scale, 8 studies [33, 38, 40, 43, 86, 91,
92, 94]; rating scale, 8 studies [37, 39, 55, 89–91, 93, 100];
closed-ended questions, 6 studies [41, 43, 49, 87, 89, 90];
staple scale, 5 studies [33, 38, 47, 86, 101]; dichotomous
questions, 3 studies [37, 42, 101]; verbal rating scale, 5 studies
[42, 95–97, 99]; visual-analogue scale, 2 studies [92, 96];
Thurstone scale, 1 study [55]; and checklists, 1 study [55]
are commonly used (Fig. 8). Open-ended, close-ended, se-
mantic differential scale, and rating scale are the most com-
monly questions types used in interviews of soundscape
studies.
The sample size had a vast variation from 22 [39] to 2933
[43] respondents, and the participation was composed of
passers-by persons (5 studies) [38, 40, 44, 86, 91], users of
the public space (5 studies) [33, 41, 47, 89, 90], residents (4
studies) [43, 55, 87, 88], students (1 study) [33], artists (1
study) [88], and persons with familiarity with the studied
soundscape (1 study) [49]. The age range was from 10 to
89 years old. From this data, we conclude that it is common
to ask users of the park and passers-by persons to participate in
soundscape studies when the data is collected through
interviews.
From the 52 consulted journal papers, 20 have used listening
tests as a data collection method [25, 47, 49–54, 84, 101–111]
(Fig. 7). Regarding questions topics from the evaluated stud-
ies, the listening tests studies encompassed the following:
Bsoundscape expectation,^ 2 studies [25, 111]; Bsoundscape
description, awareness, perception of differences^ with 3 stud-
ies [25, 53, 104]; Bbest soundscape, preferences,^ 3 studies
[25, 104, 111]; Bsoundscape quality,^ 12 studies [47, 49–52,
54, 101, 102, 105–107, 109]; Bsound sources identification,^
5 studies [47, 53, 84, 108, 110]; Bsound sources evaluation,
dominance, background, satisfaction,^ 6 studies^ [25, 49, 84,
101, 108, 110]; Bannoyance, noise sensitivity,^ 2 studies [84,
105]; Benvironmental preference,^ 1 study [111]; Bvisual/lo-
cation quality,^ 2 studies [25, 84]; Belements which can influ-
ence the soundscape,^ 1 study [104]; Blocation use (infrastruc-
ture, public transportation),^ 2 studies [25, 101]; Bknowledge
about location,^ 2 studies [25, 101]; Bbest urban space,
preference,^ 1 study [25]; Bspace valuation,^ 1 study [25];
Boverall impression,^ 2 studies [25, 84]; Bdemographic or
socioeconomic information,^ 4 studies [25, 47, 101, 103];
Bemotional and physical state,^ 1 study [103]; Bdifficulty from
listening experience,^ 2 studies [84, 104]. From these results,
Table 1 Questions topic and types regarding Soundscape studies for different data collection methods (soundwalks—SW, listening tests—LT, interviews—INT, focus group—FG)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG
Curr Pollution Rep

Davies et al. 2013 London and Yes No No No NR – – – ● Open-ended ● Overall impressions ● Shopping street (Market Street)
[79] Manchester, UK ● Soundscape description, awareness, ● Indoor shopping mall (Arndale
perception of differences Centre)
● Soundscape expectation ● Square (St Square)
● Soundscape preference ● Park (St John’s Gardens)
● Environment preferences
● Visual/location quality
● Valuation space
● Location use (infrastructure, public
transportation)
● Sound sources identification
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
● Elements which can influence the
soundscape
● Best urban space
● Demographic and socioeconomic
Pérez-Martínez Granada, Spain Yes No No No 385 – – – ● Open-ended ● Sound sources identification ● Courtyards (gardens, fountains,
et al. 2018 [80] ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality vegetation)
scale ● Visual/location quality ● Outdoor spaces (lookouts with
● Visual-analogue ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, scenic view to the city,
scale background, satisfaction vegetation, benches, water,
visitors)
● Indoor spaces (small rooms, open
spaces to outside, fountain)
Jeon and Hong Seoul, South Korea Yes No No No 90 – – – ● Demographic scale ● Sound sources identification ● Seoul Forest Park (roads, water
2015 [81] ● Staple scale ● Soundscape quality fountain, grassy area, outdoor
● Closed-ended ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, theater, forest glade, children’s
background, satisfaction playground, waterside, and
● Visual/location quality forest path)
● Demographic and socioeconomic ● Olympic Park (city center, sports
facilities, culture and leisure,
grass area, city lake, outdoor
squares of various sizes)
● Sumyudo Park (leisure and
cultural facilities with various
water features)
Liu et al. 2014 Xiamen, China Yes No No No 1) 7 – – – ● Rating scale ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, ● Urban parks (Bailuzhou-west,
[82] 2) 580 background, satisfaction Huli, Haiwan, Nanhu,
● Soundscape preferences Zhongshan)
● Visual/location quality
● Location use (infrastructure, public
transportation)
Istanbul, Turkey Yes No No No 50 – – – ● Rating scale ● Soundscape description, awareness, ● Urban park (Gezi Park—Tunnel
● Open-ended perception of differences Square)
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG

Bahali and ● Multiple choice ● Soundscape expectation

Tamer-Bazayit questions ● Soundscape quality
2017 [83] ● Semantic differential ● Sound sources identification
scale ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
● Rank Order Scaling background, satisfaction
● Elements which can influence the
soundscape
Bruce and Davies London and Yes Yes No No 42 20 – – ● Open-ended ● Soundscape description, awareness, ● Public square: pedestrian square,
2014 [25] Manchester, UK perception of differences away from traffic, shops, and
● Soundscape expectation mixed-use buildings
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, ● Green space: green area, public
background, satisfaction seating, mixed-use buildings
● Soundscape preferences ● Indoor shopping space: indoor
● Visual/location quality shopping center, reflective
● Valuation space surfaces
● Location use (infrastructure, public ● Outdoor shopping spaces: busy
transportation) road, traffic, temporary retails
● Knowledge about location premises/market stalls either
● Best urban space side
● Overall impression ● Busy road with shops: busy road,
● Demographic and socioeconomic traffic, retail premises either side
Evensen et al. Oslo, Norway Yes No Yes No 14 – 1) 99 – ● Semantic differential ● Noise annoyance ● Urban park (Slottsparken).
2016 [40] 2) 99 scale ● Soundscape quality Grassy areas, mature deciduous
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, trees, ponds, statues, and
background, satisfaction benches
Sudarsono et al. Manchester, UK Yes Yes No No Manchester Salford – – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality ● Busy shopping spot (Market
2016 [50] Bandung, Indonesia (23) (18) scale Street)
Bandung ● Tranquility (St Ann Square)
(15) ● Icon of Manchester center
Bandung (Piccadilly Garden)
(16) ● Different function of space (Food
market at Piccadilly Garden)
Song et al. 2018 Jinan, China Yes No Yes No 3 – 1260 – ● Staple scale ● Demographic and socioeconomic ● Urban park (Jinan Forest Park),
[38] ● Open-ended ● Visual/location quality scientific surveys, hiking,
● Semantic differential ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, relaxation, musical
scale background, satisfaction performances, and sports
Brambilla et al. Naples and Rome, Italy No Yes No No – 32 – – ● Open-ended ● Noise annoyance ● Pedestrian areas places
2013 [84] ● Semantic differential ● Sound sources identification frequented mainly by tourists
scale ● Visual/location quality
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
● Overall impression
● Difficulty listening test
Kongan et al. Córdoba and Rosario, Yes No Yes No 76 – 504 – ● Rating scale ● Sound sources identification ● Urban sounds
2017 [37] Argentina ● Dichotomous ● Emotional and physical state
Curr Pollution Rep
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG
Curr Pollution Rep

Valdivia, Chile ● Demographic and socioeconomic

Lund, Sweden ● Knowledge about location
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
● Overall impression
Kang and Zhang Sheffield, UK Yes No Yes No 48 – 1) 492 – ● Open-ended ● Soundscape quality ● Square (heavy traffic above the
2010 [33] 2) 223 ● Semantic differential square, loud music, birds,
scale pedestrian/bike crossings, and
● Staple scale conversations)
● Large green space surrounded by
low buildings and small roads
(sound sources during the
survey periods included
skating/shouting of
children/teenagers, traffic in
distance, birds, pedestrian/bike
crossings, and construction
noise near the site)
● Pedestrian area, but on two sides
of the square, there are two small
roads (light traffic,
conversations, footsteps,
skateboarding, wind, and more
distinguishingly, street singers
as well as music from
surrounding buildings including
the City Hall and a music store)
● Square surrounded by
multi-story buildings and on one
side, there is a fairly busy road
(water from the fountains and
cascades, traffic in distance,
chatting, and children’s
shouting)
Jeon et al. 2013 Seoul, South Korea Yes No No No 30 – – – ● Staple scale ● Soundscape quality ● Busy shopping area sounds
[30] ● Soundscape preference ● Urban stream sounds
● Visual/location quality
● Overall impression
Berglund and Stockholm, Sweden Yes No No No 106 – – – ● Visual-analogue ● Soundscape quality ● Residential areas, 4 locations
Nilsson 2006 scale
[85]
Hong and Jeon Seoul, South Korea No No Yes No – – 631 – ● Semantic differential ● Sound sources identification● ● Commercial area, 6 locations
2015 [86] scale Soundscape quality ● Residential area, 6 locations
● Staple scale ● Visual/location quality ● Business area
● Open-ended ● Recreational area, 9 locations
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG

● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,

background, satisfaction
Bjørner 2004 [42] Copenhagen, Denmark No No Yes Yes – – 1149 NR ● Open-ended ● Noise annoyance NR
● Verbal rating scale ● Valuation space
● Dichotomous ● Demographic and socioeconomic
● Location use (infrastructure, public
transportation)
Levine 1981 [55] Los Angeles, USA No No Yes No – – 94 – ● Rating scale ● Noise annoyance ● Areas having high proportions of
● Thurstone scale low-income, older, and
working-class persons were
chosen
Guastavino et al. Paris and Nantes, No Yes Yes No – 1) 29 42 – ● Open-ended ● Soundscape quality ● Open near a major road
2005 [49] France 2) 27 ● Closed-ended ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, ● Park near road and train station
background, satisfaction ● Quiet street close to a schoolyard
● Walled-in plaza in the pedestrian
area
● Sidewalk of major road
● Sidewalk café-district in
pedestrian area
● Large park near road and train
station
● An open square near the major
road
Bjerre et al. 2017 Copenhagen, Denmark No Yes Yes No – 24 66 – ● Staple scale ● Soundscape quality ● Park: natural acoustic
[47] ● Open-ended ● Demographic and socioeconomic environment shielded from the
surrounding traffic
● Square: artificially added natural
elements, such as planted trees
and a water fountain, to meet the
needs for a more comfortable
space
● Bridge area: urban acoustic
environment with heavy traffic
and nature represented by the
two lakes and sporadic trees in
the area
Langdon 1976 London, UK No No Yes No – – 2933 – ● Open-ended ● Noise annoyance ● Traffic sources
[43] ● Close-ended ● Demographic and socioeconomic
● Semantic differential
scale
Izumi and Yano Hokkaido, Japan No No Yes No – – 146 – ● Open-ended ● Noise annoyance ● Traffic sources
1991 [87] ● Close-ended ● Demographic and socioeconomic
Patelli 2017 [88] Mazama, USA No No Yes No – – 1) – ● Open-ended ● Soundscape expectation ● Small village sound sources
● Soundscape memories
● Soundscape behavior
Curr Pollution Rep
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG
Curr Pollution Rep

30- ● Environment preferences

2)
20
Rehan 2016 [39] Cairo, Egypt No No Yes No – – 25 – ● Rating scale ● Noise annoyance ● At Ramses square, there are
● Open-ended ● Soundscape memories multiple sources of sound
● Soundscape quality including traffic congestion
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, (because of micro-busses
background, satisfaction stopping everywhere),
● Demographic and socioeconomic unwanted sound from trains in
the railway station, the noise
from the tram, hard pavement
reflecting the sound of people
walking, and noise from the
shouting of peddlers. In
addition, the sounds from the
traffic congestion of 6 of
October Bridge (Elevated
Highway) that passes the square.
There are no natural clear
sounds due to the lake of trees
Szeremeta and Curitiba, Brazil No No Yes No – – 335 – ● Open-ended ● Noise annoyance ● Urban parks in areas of great
Zannin 2009 ● Close-ended ● Visual/location quality urban density, surrounded by
[89] ● Rating scale ● Sound sources identification streets with heavy vehicle traffic
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
Liu and Kang Sheffield, UK No No Yes No – – 53 – ● Open-ended ● Soundscape quality ● Urban sounds
2016 [44] ● Soundscape memories
● Soundscape behavior
● Demographic and socioeconomic
Merchan et al. Penalara Natural Park, No No Yes No – – 327 – ● Open-ended ● Sound sources identification ● Park sounds
2014 [41] Spain ● Close-ended ● Valuation space
● Knowledge about location
● Demographic and socioeconomic
Axelsson et al. Stockholm, Sweden No No Yes No – – 405 – ● Close-ended ● Soundscape description, awareness, ● Urban park sounds
2014 [90] ● Rating scale perception of differences
● Checklists ● Overall impression
● Demographic and socioeconomic
Kaymaz et al. Ankara, Turkey No No Yes No – – 97 – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality ● A historical urban area with
2016 [91] ● Rating scale ● Demographic and socioeconomic hospitals and residential area of
lower income group in the
surroundings
Marry and Grenoble, France No No Yes Yes – – 29 18 ● Open-ended ● Overall impression ● Sound sources from squares
Defrance 2013 questions
[56]
Granada, Spain No No Yes No – – 570 – ● Soundscape quality ● Traffic
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG

Torija et al. 2012 ● Visual-analogue ● Leisure activities

[92] scale ● Commercial activities
● Semantic differential ● Human occupancy
scale ● Natural sounds
● Gardens
● Natural environments
Jambrošić et al. Zadar, Croatia No No Yes No – – 167 – ● Rating scale ● Soundscape quality ● City streets
2013 [93] ● Demographic and socioeconomic ● Main square sources
● Soundscape preference ● Ferry harbor
● Visual/location quality ● Sea Organ
● Sea sounds
Raimbault 2006 Nantes and Lyon, No No Yes No – – 296 – ● Open-ended ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance, ● Pedestrians
[94] France questions background, satisfaction ● Shopping areas
● Semantic differential ● Knowledge about location ● Cafes
scale ● Sound sources identification ● Children playing
● Visual/location quality
Schulte-Fortkamp Berlin, Germany No No Yes No – – NR – ● Verbal rating scale ● Sound sources identification ● Residential areas
and Fiebig ● Noise annoyance
2006 [95] ● Location use (infrastructure, public
transportation)
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
● Demographic and socioeconomic
Nilsson and Stockholm, Sweden No No Yes No – – 286 – ● Verbal rating scale ● Demographic and socioeconomic ● Green areas sound sources
Berglund 2013 ● Visual-analogue ● Soundscape quality
[96] scale ● Visual/location quality
● Sound sources identification
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
Lercher et al. Innsbruck, Austria No No Yes No – – 1280 – ● Verbal rating scale ● Demographic and socioeconomic ● ● Industrial sounds
2013 [97] Noise annoyance ● Small business sounds
● Soundscape quality ● Rural sounds
● Biological risk information
● Overall impression
Gustaviano 2006 Paris, Nantes and Lyon, No No Yes No – – 77 – ● Open-ended ● Demographic and socioeconomic Not reported
[98] France questions ● Noise annoyance
● Soundscape quality
● Environment preferences
Brambilla et al. Milan and Naples, Italy No No Yes No – – 1) 228 – ● Verbal rating scale ● Noise annoyance ● Park sounds
2013 [99] 2) 38 ● Soundscape quality
● Sound sources identification
● Soundscape preference
● Location use (infrastructure, public
transportation)
Curr Pollution Rep
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG
Curr Pollution Rep

● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,

background, satisfaction
● Demographic and socioeconomic
Coensel and Ghent, Belgium No No Yes No – – 200 – ● Rating scale ● Sound sources identification ● Street sounds
Botteldooren ● Soundscape expectation
2006 [100] ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
Brambilla and Naples, Italy No Yes Yes No – – 1) 73 – ● Open-ended ● Demographic and socioeconomic ● Urban park sounds
Maffei 2006 2) 26 questions ● Soundscape quality ● Human activities
[101] ● Dichotomous ● Location use (infrastructure, public ● Community noise
questions transportation) ● Technological noises
● Staple scale ● Knowledge about location
● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
background, satisfaction
Axelsson et al. Stockholm, Sweden No Yes No No – 100 – – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality ● Sound samples from London and
2010 [51] scale Stockholm.
Urban courtyards (2), motorways
(2), a pedestrian street (1),
schoolyards (14), suburban
parks (5), suburban recreational
areas (9), suburban residential
areas (2), urban parks (4), an
urban square market (1), and
urban streets (10)
Irwin et al. 2011 Nottingham, UK No Yes No No – Pilot, 5 – – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality ● 219 samples, British urban
[102] Final, 16 scale soundscapes: street, market,
shopping mall, and park
Gonzalo et al. Cáceres, Spain No Yes No No – 25 – – ● Semantic differential ● Demographic and socioeconomic Urban sounds:
2015 [103] scale ● Emotional and physical state ● Fairly saturated rush-hour traffic
● Open-ended environments (4 recordings)
● Closed-ended ● Traffic environments combined
with other environments (4
recordings)
● Urban green zones (3 recordings)
● Building or road work (3
recordings)
● Public transport station (4
recordings)
● Crowded spaces (4 recordings)
● Children (3 recordings)
● Other urban environments (6
recordings)
Maculewicz et al. Copenhagen, Denmark No Yes No No – 25 – – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape description, awareness, ● Seashore
2016 [104] scale perception of differences ● Restaurant
● Soundscape preference ● Street
Table 1 (continued)

Author/year Location (study area) Methodology Sample size Question types Question topics Stimuli

SW LT INT FG SW LT INT FG

● Difficulty listening test ● Office

● Elements which can influence the
soundscape
Aletta et al. 2016 Torino, Italy No Yes No No – 88 – – ● Semantic differential ● Noise annoyance ● Urban park sounds
[105] Sheffield, UK scale ● Soundscape quality
Jeon et al. 2018 France, Korea, and No Yes No No – 95 – – ● Staple scale ● Soundscape quality ● Urban park sounds
[106] Sweden ● Semantic differential
Woodcock et al. Salford, UK No Yes No No – 18 – – ● Rank order scale ● Soundscape description, awareness, ● Urban soundscapes: urban park,
2017 [53] perception of differences a junction on a busy street in the
● Sound sources identification city center, a market in a busy
area and a quiet area, inside a
busy shop, inside a quiet shop,
inside a large museum, inside a
bar, and inside a busy cafeteria
Medvedev et al. Auckland, New No Yes No No – 45 – – ● Rating scale ● Soundscape quality ● Birdsong
2015 [52] Zealand ● Ocean
● Road noise
● Construction noise
Cain et al. 2013 Warwick, UK No Yes No No – 25 450 – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality ● Urban sounds: streets with busy
[54] scale traffic and human sounds; urban
parks with distant traffic and
wildlife; a café atmosphere; and
crowds of people (PSP)
● University of Warwick: roads
with traffic, human sounds,
green spaces with distant traffic,
wildlife and water features
Hall et al. 2013 Nottingham, UK No Yes No No – 1) 5 – – ● Semantic differential ● Soundscape quality ● Street sounds
[107] 2) 15 ● Market sounds
● Shopping mall sounds
● Park
Hatfield et al. Sydney, Australia No Yes No No – 82 – – ● Close-ended ● Sound sources identification ● Sounds from their homes
2006 [108] questions ● Noise annoyance
● Open-ended ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
questions background, satisfaction
● Staple scale
● Demographic
information
Hume and Manchester, UK No Yes No No – 80 – – ● Staple scale ● Soundscape quality ● Human sounds
Ahtamad 2013
[109]
Lavandier and Paris, France No Yes No No – 20 – – ● Rating scale ● Sound sources identification ● Street sounds
Defréville 2006 ● Sound sources evaluation, dominance,
[110] background, satisfaction
Curr Pollution Rep
Curr Pollution Rep

we conclude that Bsoundscape quality,^ Bsound sources eval-

uation, dominance, background, satisfaction,^ Bdemographic
or socioeconomic information,^ and Bsound sources

● Vehicle-related sounds

● Construction sounds
● Urban park sounds
identification^ are the main topics investigated through listen-

● Natural sounds
● Human sounds
● Urban sounds ing test in soundscape studies.

● Rural sounds
The most frequently used stimuli originated from green
spaces and parks, 14 studies [25, 47, 49–51, 53, 54,
Stimuli

101–103, 105–107, 111] and followed by traffic sources, 12

studies[46, 47, 57, 58, 59, 602, 63, 64, 65, 80, 83, 84]; shop-
ping and pedestrian areas, 8 studies [25, 49–51, 53, 84, 102,
107]; squares sources, 5 studies [25, 49–51, 53, 84, 102, 107];
indoor shopping area sources, 3 studies [25, 53, 102]; outdoor
spaces in general, 4 studies [49–51, 103]; natural sources, 4
● Environment preferences
● Soundscape expectation

studies [52, 54, 104, 111]; human activities sources, 3 studies

● Soundscape quality

[54, 101, 109]; restaurant or café sources, 3 studies [53, 54,

Question topics

104]; indoor spaces sources, 3 studies [53, 104, 108]; con-

struction sound sources, 2 studies [52, 111]; technological
sources, 1 study [101]; and rural sound sources, 1 study
[111]. From these results, we concluded that green areas, traf-
fic, shopping, and pedestrian areas, as well as squares sounds
are the most investigated sound sources in soundscape studies
● Verbal rating scale

using listening tests.

Question types

Open-ended questions, 7 studies [25, 47, 49, 84, 101, 103,

108]; semantic differential scale, 9 studies [51, 54, 84,
102–107]; rating scale, 2 studies [52, 110]; closed-ended ques-
tions, 4 studies [49, 50, 103, 108]; staple scale, 5 studies [47,
FG

101, 106, 108, 109]; dichotomous, 1 study [101]; demograph-

ic scale, 1 study [108]; rank order scale, 1 study [53]; and
INT

verbal rating scale, 1 study [111] are the questions types

adopted through listening tests in soundscape studies.
123

Semantic differential scale, open-ended questions, staple

LT

scale, closed-ended questions, and rating scale are the most

Sample size

frequent questions types used in listening tests surveys for

soundscape research purposes (Fig. 8).
–

The sample size had a big variation ranging from 15 [50] to

SW LT INT FG SW

123 [111] respondents, and the participation was composed of

No

students and academic staff (6 studies) [49–52, 109, 111],

naïve listeners (1 study) [25], experts and non-experts in
Yes No
Methodology

acoustics (1 study) [53], and persons recruited per email (1

study) [90]. The age range was from 17 to 72 years old. It is
possible to recognize in these results that students and aca-
No

demic staff, including experts and non-experts, were the main

Location (study area)

participants in listening experiences regarding soundscape

studies.
Payne 2013 [111] Manchester, UK

Focus Group
Table 1 (continued)

Just two studies from the amount of 52 papers reported the use
of focus group as data collection method [42, 56] (Fig. 7). The
Author/year

most common questions investigated through focus group

were regarding Bannoyance, noise sensitivity,^ 1 study [42];
Blocation use (infrastructure or public transportation),^ 1
 Curr Pollution Rep

SW LT INT FG
18

16

14

12

Quantity
10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 7 Questions topic distribution on each data collection method.
Legend: 1. Soundscape expectation. 2. Soundscape description,
awareness, perception of differences. 3. Best soundscape, preference. 4.
Soundscape quality. 5. Soundscape memories. 6. Behaviors influenced by
the soundscape. 7. Sound sources identification. 8. Sound sources
evaluation, dominance, background, satisfaction. 9. Annoyance, noise
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Topics
sensitivity. 10. Environmental preference. 11. Visual/location quality.
12. Elements which can influence the soundscape. 13. Location use
(infrastructure or public transportation). 14. Knowledge about the
location. 15. Best urban space, preference. 16. Space valuation. 17.
Overall impression. 18. Demographic or socioeconomic information.
19.Emotional and physical state. 20. Difficulty from listening experience

study [42]; Bspace valuation,^ 1 study [42]; Boverall
impression,^ 1 study [56]; and Bdemographic or socioeco-
nomic information, 1 study [42]. Those questions have a gen-
eral overview of the study area and subjects.
Focus group is a discussion group, so the participants are
not using a traditional questionnaire to answer questions relat-
ed to soundscape (Fig. 8). Subjects profile was not reported in
the mentioned studies.
Discussion
From 52 peer-reviewed papers, 13 used soundwalks, 20
listening tests, 29 interviews, and 2 focus groups as data
collection method. Some of those papers adopted more
than one data collection method, as follows: two studies
used soundwalks and listening tests [25, 50], four stud-
ies used soundwalks and interviews [33, 37, 38, 40],
three selected listening tests and interviews [47, 49,
101], and two adopted interviews and focus group [42,
56]. Those findings are confirming the tendency of the
use of the triangulation technique, suggested in the ISO
12913-2, which consist in the verification of results
through two or more methods [13, 14].
Soundscapes studies using soundwalks as data collec-
tion method had a great diversity of research topics.
From 20 research topics summarized in this study
(Fig. 7), 18 were investigated with the help of
soundwalks. The main topics are ranked in the follow-
ing order: Bsound sources evaluation, dominance, back-
ground, satisfaction,^ Bsoundscape quality,^ Bvisual/loca-
tion quality,^ Bsound source identification,^ Boverall
i m p r e s s i o n , ^ Bd e m o g r a p h i c a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c
information.^ Regarding question type, the main options
were open-ended questions, semantic differential, and
staple scale. Multiple choice questions were used only

Fig. 8 Questions type distribution SW LT INT FG

on each data collection method. 18
Legend: 1. Open-ended 16
questions. 2. Closed-ended 14
questions. 3. Multiple choice
questions. 4. Dichotomous. 5. 12
Quantity

Checklists. 6. Demographic scale. 10

7. Semantic differential scale. 8. 8
Visual-analogue scale. 9. Staple
scale. 10. Rating scale. 11. Rank 6
order scale. 12. Verbal rating 4
scale. 13. Thurstone scale 2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Type
Curr Pollution Rep
in soundwalks. The main sound stimuli investigated
through this method were park, squares, and shopping
areas sources. Participants were invited on-site during
their leisure time (park users), or colleagues (academic
staff) and students participated in the data collection.
In the use of interviews as data collection method, 17
topics were investigated (Fig. 7). Two topics were ex-
clusive in studies using interviews: Bsoundscape
m e m o r i e s ^ a n d Bb e h a v i o r s i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e
soundscape.^ For this data collection option, the main
t o p i c s w e r e Bd e m o g r a p h i c a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c
information,^ Bsound sources evaluation, dominance,
background and satisfaction,^ and Bsoundscape quality.^
Some question types had a preference, like Bopen-ended
questions,^ Bclosed-ended questions,^ Bsemantic differ-
ential scale,^ and Brating order scale.^ Checklists and
Thurstone scale were used exclusively in interviews.
During the interviews, the main sound stimuli were
the park, traffic, and square sources. It is common to
ask users of the park and passers-by persons to partic-
ipate in this art of data collection.
Studies which adopted listening tests as data collec-
tion method reported 18 investigated topics (Fig. 7).
The main topics were Bsoundscape quality,^ Bsound
sources evaluation, dominance, background,
satisfaction,^ Bdemographic information,^ and Bsound
source identification.^ The main questions types were
semantic differential scale, open-ended questions, staple
scale, closed-ended questions, and rating scale. The
same main sound stimuli from soundwalks were used
in listening tests studies, including sounds from traffic
flow. Students and academic staff, including experts and
non-experts, were the main participants in listening ex-
periences regarding soundscape studies.
Focus group adopted 5 of 20 investigated topics. The dis-
cussion of Bannoyance, noise sensitivity,^ Blocation use (in-
frastructure or public transportation), Bspace valuation,^
Boverall impression,^ and Bdemographic or socioeconomic
information^ was supported by the investigators.
Participants were not using a traditional questionnaire to an-
swer questions related to the soundscape, so there is no infor-
mation about question type adopted in this data collection
method.
Conclusion
This study investigated the current status of socio-
acoustic studies with regard to question topics and
types, used stimuli, and characteristics about the partic-
ipants, using the four major adopted data collection
methods in soundscape studies: soundwalks, interviews,
listening tests, and focus group. To achieve this aim,
there were evaluated 52 peer-reviewed papers published
on the last 20 years through a systematic review.
BDemographic or socioeconomic information,^
Boverall impression,^ Bannoyance, noise sensitivity,^
Blocation use (infrastructure or public transportation),^
and Bspace valuation^ are the research topics which are
investigated in any data collection method analyzed in
this study. Moreover, Bsoundscape quality,^ Bsound
sources evaluation, dominance, background, satisfaction,^
and Bsound sources identification^ are the most frequently
investigated topics by soundwalks, interviews, and listen-
ing tests. BVisual/local quality^ is a topic of great rele-
vance when the investigation is conducted through
soundwalks, due to the immersion of the participant on-
site. Two exclusive topics are investigated through inter-
views, the Bsoundscape memories^ and Bbehaviors influ-
enced by the soundscape.^
Regarding question types and answers adopted in
soundscape studies (soundwalks, interviews, and listening
tests), it is common to use open-ended questions to re-
spond about Bsound sources identification^ or to collect
Bdemographic and socioeconomic information.^ Semantic
differential scale, staple scale, and rating order scale are
considered as closed-ended questions and are commonly
used for the following topics: Bsoundscape quality,^
Bsound sources evaluation, dominance, background,
satisfaction,^ and Bvisual/location quality.^ Multiple
choice questions were used only in soundwalks, and
checklists and Thurstone scale was used exclusively in
interviews. Multiple choice questions are helping to col-
lected non-excluding information about the soundscape or
area [62]. Checklists are forcing the participant to give
only one appropriate answer [77]. The Thurstone scale
is composed of statements which the respondent should
evaluate regarding the sonic and spatial environment [75].
In all data collection methods parks and square
sounds are frequently used as stimuli under investiga-
tion. Sounds from shopping areas were investigated fre-
quently through soundwalks and listening tests. Traffic
sounds were mainly investigated by interviews and lis-
tening tests.
The sample size has a big variation for interviews
(min = 22, max = 2933), middle proportion for
soundwalks (min = 3, max = 580), and small proportion
for listening tests (min = 15, max = 123) in the investi-
gated manuscripts. Students and academic staff are a
common test sample for all investigation methods. Park
visitors or users of the public space participated fre-
quently in soundwalks and interviews. Passers-by, resi-
dents, artists, and person familiarized with the study
area were common respondents of interviews. Non-
expert listeners and acoustic experts participated fre-
quently in listening tests.

Acknowledgments The authors also would like to thank the reviewers for
the nice suggestions and recommendations, as well as the editor of the
section Noise Pollution, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin,
for the kind invitation to submit this manuscript to the Journal Current
Pollution Reports.
Funding Information The authors received financing scholarships from
the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior/
Programa Ciências sem Fronteiras (CAPES—Brazil’s National
Coordination of Personal Improvement on Superior Level/Science
Without Borders Program) and the Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst (DAAD—German Academic Exchange Service).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Schafer RM. The soundscape: our sonic environment and the
tuning of the world. Inner Traditions/ Bear & Co; 1977.
2. Brown L, Gjestaland T, Dubois D. Acoustic environments and
soundscapes. In: Kang J, Schulte-Fortkamp B, editors.
Soundscape and the built environment. Boca Raton: CRC Press;
2016.
3. Axelsson Ö. The ISO 12913 series on soundscape. In Proceedings
Forum Acusticum, Aalborg, Denmark: 1985–1987; 2011.
4. Thompson E. The soundscape of modernity: architectural acous-
tics and the culture of listening in America 1900–1933.
Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2002.
5. Schulte-Fortkamp B, Dubois D. Recent advances in soundscape
research. Acta Acustica United Acustica. 92(6):v–viii.
6. Davies WJ, Adams MD, Bruce NS, Cain R, Carlyle A, Cusdack P,
Hume KI, Jennings P, Plack CJ. The positive soundscape project.
In Proceedings 19th International Congress on Acoustics Madrid,
2–7 September 2007.
7. Davies WJ. Special issue: applied soundscapes. Appl Acoust.
2013;74:223.
8. COST TUD Action TD0804. Soundscape of European cities and
landscapes. In: Kang J, Chourmouziadou K, Skantamis K, Wang
B, Hao Y, editors. Soundscape-COST. Oxford: UK; 2013.
9. Kang J, Aletta F, Gjestland TT, Brown LA, Botteldooren D,
Schulte-fortkamp B, et al. Ten questions on the soundscapes of
the built environment. Build Environ. 2016;108:284–94.
10. Kang J. Urban sound environment. Oxon: Taylor & Francis; 2007.
11. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 12913-1:2014
Acoustics – Soundscape – part I: definition and conceptual frame-
work. Geneva: ISO; 2014.
12. Brown AL, Kang J, Gjestland T. Towards standardization
in soundscape preference assessment. Appl Acoust.
2011;72:387–92.
13. International Organization for Standartization. ISO 12913-2:2017
Acoustics – Soundscape – part 2: data collection and reporting
requirements. Geneva: ISO; 2017.
14. Schulte-Fortkamp B, Kang J. Introduction to the special issue on
soundscapes. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134:765–6.
15. Raimbault M, Bérengier M, Dubois D. Ambient sound assessment
of urban environments: field studies in two French cities. Appl
Acoust. 2003;64:1241–56.
16. Kang J. Acoustic simulation and comfort in urban open public
spaces. Sub-final report for European Commission project
Curr Pollution Rep
RUROS—rediscovering the urban realm and open spaces,
School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK; 2004.
17. Guski R. Psychological methods for evaluating sound quality and
assessing acoustic information. Acustica United Acta Acustica.
1997;83:765–74.
18. Hellbrück J, Zeitler A. Evaluating sequences of environmental
noise using the method of absolute judgment in laboratory and
outdoor situations. Some methodological considerations. J
Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105(2):1083.
19. Aletta F, Kang J, Axelsson Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a con-
ceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models.
Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;149:65–74.
20. Jennings P, Cain R. A framework for improving urban
soundscapes. Appl Acoust. 2013;74:293–9.
21. Adams M, Bruce N, Davies W, Cain R, Jennings P, Carlyle A,
et al. Soundwalking as methodology for understanding
soundscapes. Proc Inst Acoust. 2008;30(2):548–54.
22. Susini P, Lemaitre G, McAdams S. Psychological measurement
for sound description and evaluation. In: Berglund B, Rossi GB,
Townsend JT, Pendrill LR, editors. Measurement with persons:
theory, methods, and implementation areas. New York:
Psychology Press; 2012. p. 222–53.
23. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 15666:
2003 Acoustics—assessment of noise annoyance by means of
social and socio-acoustic surveys. Geneva: ISO; 2003.
24. Simmons C. Developing a uniform questionnaire for socio-
acoustic surveys in residential buildings. In Rasmussen B,
Machimbarrena M, editors. COST Action TU0901: integrating
and harmonizing sound insulation aspects in sustainable urban
housing constructions building acoustics throughout Europe.
Volume 1: towards a common framework in building acoustics
throughout Europe. COST; 2014.
25. Bruce NS, Davies WJ. The effects of expectation on the percep-
tion of soundscapes. Appl Acoust. 2014;85:1–11.
26. Schafer RM. The music of the environment. Vienna: Universal
Edition; 1973.
27. Augoyard JF. Pas à pas: Essai sur le cheminement quotidien en
milieu urbain. Paris: Seuil; 1979.
28. Staṥko-Mazur K. Soundwalk as a multifaceted practice. Argument
Biannual Philos J. 2015;5(2):439–55.
29. Schafer RM. The new soundscape: a handbook for the modern
music teacher. Don Mills: BMI Canada; 1969.
30. Jeon JY, Hong JY, Lee PJ. Soundwalk approach to identify urban
soundscapes individually. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134(1):803–12.
31. Jeon JY, Lee PJ, Hong JY, Cabrera D. Non-auditory factors affect-
ing urban soundscape evaluation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130(6):
3761–70.
32. Semidor C. Listening to a city with the soundwalk method. Acta
Acustica United Acustica. 2006;92(August):959–64.
33. Kang J, Zhang M. Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape
in urban open public spaces. Build Environ. 2010;45:150–7.
34. Fiebig A. Acoustic environments and their perception measured
by the soundwalk method. In proceedings Inter-Noise, San
Francisco, USA; 2015.
35. Fiebig A, Herweg A. The measurement of soundscapes: a study of
methods and their implications. In Proceedings Inter-Noise, Hong
Kong, China; 2017.
36. Bassarab R, Sharp B, Robinette B. An updated catalog of 628
social surveys of residents’ reaction to environmental noise
(1943–2008). Arlington: Wyle Laboratories; 2009.
37. Kongan P, Turra B, Arenas JP, Hinalaf M. A comprehensive meth-
odology for the multidimensional and synchronic data collecting
in soundscape. Sci Total Environ. 2017;580:1068–77.
38. Song X, Lv X, Yu D, Wu Q. Spatial-temporal change analysis of
plant soundscapes and their design methods. Urban For Urban
Green. 2018;29:96–105.
Curr Pollution Rep
39. Rehan RM. The phonic identity of the city urban soundscape for
sustainable spaces. HBRC J. 2016;12:337–49.
40. Evensen KH, Raanaas RK, Fyhri A. Soundscape and perceived
suitability for recreation in an urban designated quiet zone. Urban
For Urban Green. 2016;20:243–8.
41. Merchan CI, Diaz-Balteiro L, Soliño M. Noise pollution in nation-
al parks: soundscape and economic valuation. Landsc Urban Plan.
2014;123:1–9.
42. Bjørner TB. Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation
surveys to value noise reduction. Transp Res Part D: Transp
Environ. 2004;9(5):341–56.
43. Langdon FJ. Noise nuisance caused by road traffic in residential
areas. J Sound Vib. 1976;47(2):243–63.
44. Liu F, Kang J. A grounded theory approach to the subjective
understanding of urban soundscape in Sheffield. Cities. 2016;50:
28–39.
45. Zannin PHT, Engel MS, Fiedler PEK, Bunn F. Characterization of
environmental noise based on noise measurements, noise mapping
and interviews: a case study at a university campus in Brazil.
Cities. 2013;31:317–27.
46. Yang W, Kang J. Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open pub-
lic spaces. Appl Acoust. 2005;66:211–29.
47. Bjerre LC, Larsen TM, Sørensen AJ, Santurette S, Jeong CH. On-
site and laboratory evaluations of soundscape quality in recrea-
tional urban spaces. Noise Health. 2017;19(89):183–95.
48. Guastavino C, Katz BFG. Perceptual evaluation of multi-
dimensional spatial audio reproduction. J Acoust Soc Am.
2004;116(2):1105–15.
49. Guastavino C, Katz BFG, Polack JD, Levitin DJ, Dubois D.
Ecological validity of soundscape reproduction. Acta Acustica
United Acustica. 2005;91(2):333–41.
50. Sudarsono AS, Lam YW, Davies WJ. The effect of sound level on
perception of reproduced soundscapes. Appl Acoust. 2016;110:
53–60.
51. Axelsson Ö, Nilsson ME, Berglund B. A principal components
model of soundscape perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(5):
2836–46.
52. Medvedev O, Shepherd D, Hautus MJ. The restorative potential of
soundscapes: a physiological investigation. Appl Acoust.
2015;96:20–6.
53. Woodcock J, Davies WJ, Cox TJ. A cognitive framework for the
categorization of auditory objects in urban soundscapes. Appl
Acoust. 2017;121:56–64.
54. Cain R, Jennings P, Poxon J. The development and application of
the emotional dimensions of a soundscape. Appl Acoust.
2013;74(2):232–9.
55. Levine N. The development of an annoyance scale for community
noise assessment. J Sound Vib. 1981;74(2):265–79.
56. Marry S, Defrance J. Analysis of the perception and representation
of sonic public spaces through on-site survey, acoustic indicators.
Appl Acoust. 2013;74(2):282–92.
57. DeFranzo S.E. 5 Examples of survey demographic questions.
2 01 8 . ht t p s: / / w w w. s nap su r v e y s. c om / bl og / 5 - su r v e y -
demographic-question-examples/.
58. Brace I. Questionnaire design: how to plan, structure and write
survey material for effective market research. 2nd ed. Kogan
Page: Market Research in Practice; 2008.
59. Engel RJ, Schutt RK. The practice of research in social work. 3rd
ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2013.
60. Cargan L. Doing social research. Lanham: Rowman & Littelfield
Publishers, Inc.; 2007. p. 93.
61. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF. The SAGE encyclopedia of
social science research methods, vol. 1: Thousand Oaks; 2004. p.
128.
62. UNSW Teaching. Assessing by multiple choice questions. 2018.
https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/assessing-multiple-choice-questions.
63. Wrenn B, Stevens RE, Loudon DL. Marketing research: text and
cases. 2nd ed. Binghamton: Best Business Books; 2007.
64. Osgood CE, George J, Percy S. The measurement of meaning.
Illinois: Ninth printing; 1975.
65. Loring K, Stewart A, Ritter P, González V, Laurent D, Lynch J.
Outcome measures for education and other health care interven-
tions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 1996.
66. Mooi E, Sarstedt M, Mooi-Reci I. Market research: the process
data, and methods using stata: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd;
2018.
67. Mangal SK, Mangal S. Research methodology in behavioral sci-
ences. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited; 2013.
68. Madu CN. Statistics as easy as 1,2,3! with Microsoft ® Excel for
Windows. CT: Chi Publishers Fairfield; 2003.
69. McNabb DE. Research methods in public administration and non-
profit management: quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2nd
ed. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2008.
70. Sevilla CG, Ochave JA, Punsalan TG, Regala BP, Uriarte GG.
Research methods: Rex Book Store; 1992.
71. Wreeb B, Robert E, Stevens DL. Marketing research: text and
cases—second edition. Binghamton: Best Business Books; 2007.
72. Philips PP, Philips JJ, Aaron B. Survey basics. Alexandria: ASTD;
2013.
73. QuestionPro. Popular survey questions with survey examples and
sample survey. 2018. https://www.questionpro.com/article/
survey-question-answer-type.html#The_Dichotomous_Survey_
Questions.
74. Mitchell ML, Jolley JM. Research design explained. 8th ed.
Belmont: Wadsworth CENAGE Learning; 2013.
75. Erwin P. Attitudes and persuasion. East Sussex: Psychology Press;
2001.
76. Jackson SL. Research methods: a modular approach. Stamford:
CENGAGE Learning; 2011.
77. Coppedge M. Democratization and research methods. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2012.
78. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA group.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):
e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
79. Davies WJ, Adams MD, Bruce NS, Cain R, Carlyle A, Cusack P,
et al. Perception of soundscapes: an interdisciplinary approach.
Appl Acoust. 2013;74(2):224–31.
80. Pérez-Martínez G, Torija AJ, Ruiz DP. Soundscape assessment of
a monumental place: a methodology based on the perception of
dominant sounds. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;169:12–21.
81. Jeon JH, Hong JY. Classification of urban park soundscapes
through perceptions of the acoustical environments. Landsc
Urban Plan. 2015;141:100–11.
82. Liu J, Kang J, Behm H, Luo T. Effects of landscape on soundscape
perception. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;123:30–40.
83. Bahalı S, Tamer-Bayazıt N. Soundscape research on the Gezi
Park-Tunnel Square route. Appl Acoust. 2017;116:260–70.
84. Brambilla G, Maffei L, Di Gabriele M, Gallo V. Merging physical
parameters and laboratory subjective ratings for the soundscape
assessment of urban squares. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134:782–90.
85. Berglund B, Nilsson ME. On a tool for measuring soundscape
quality in urban residential areas. Acta Acustica United
Acustica. 2006;92(2):938–44.
86. Hong JY, Jeon JY. Influence of urban contexts on soundscape
perceptions. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;141:78–87.
87. Izumi K, Yano T. Community response to road traffic noise: social
surveys in three cities in Hokkaido. J Sound Vib. 1991;151(3):
505–12.
88. Patelli P. A field is to play. Enacting mental images of the sound-
scape. Emot Space Soc. 2017;25:44–53.

89. Szeremeta B, Zannin PHT. Analysis and evaluation of
soundscapes in public parks through interviews and measurement
of noise. Sci Total Environ. 2009;407(24):6143–9.
90. Axelsson Ö, Nilsson ME, Hellström B, Lundén P. A field exper-
iment on the impact of sounds from a jet-and-basin fountain on
soundscape quality in an urban park. Landsc Urban Plan.
2014;123:49–60.
91. Kaymaz I, Cüre CT, Baki E. Perceived soundscape of urban his-
torical places: a case study of Hamamönü, Ankara. Procedia Eng.
2016;161:1920–5.
92. Torija AJ, Ruiz DP, Ramos-Ridao AF. Application of a method-
ology for categorizing and differentiating urban soundscapes
using acoustical descriptors and semantic-differential attributes. J
Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134(1):791–802.
93. Jambrošić K, Horvat M, Domitrović H. Assessment of urban
soundscapes with the focus on an architectural installation with
musical features. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134(1):869–79.
94. Raimbault M. Qualitative judgments of urban soundscapes:
questioning questionnaires and semantic scales. Acta Acustica
United Acustica. 2006;92(2):929–37.
95. Schulte-Fortkamp B, Fiebig A. Soundscape analysis in a residen-
tial area: an evaluation of noise and people’s mind. Acta Acustica
United Acustica. 2006;92(6):875–80.
96. Nilsson ME, Berglund B. Soundscape quality in suburban green
areas and city parks. Acta Acustica United Acustica. 2006;92(6):
903–11.
97. Lercher P, Evans GW, Widmann U. The ecological context of
soundscapes for children’s blood pressure. J Acoust Soc Am.
2013;134(1):773–81.
98. Guastavino C. The ideal urban soundscape: investigating the
sound quality of French cities. Acta Acustica United Acustica.
2006;92(6):945–51.
99. Brambilla G, Gallo V, Asdrubali F, D’Alessandro F. The perceived
quality of soundscape in three urban parks in Rome. J Acoust Soc
Am. 2013;134(1):832–9.
100. Coensel BD, Botteldooren D. The quiet rural soundscape and how
to characterize it. Acta Acustica United Acustica. 2006;92(6):
887–97.
Curr Pollution Rep
101. Brambilla G, Maffei L. Responses to noise in urban parks and in
rural quiet areas. Acta Acustica United Acustica. 2006;92(6):881–
6.
102. Irwin A, Hall DA, Peters A, Plack CJ. Listening to urban
soundscapes: physiological validity of perceptual dimensions.
Psychophysiology. 2011;48(2):258–68.
103. Gonzalo GR, Carmona JT, Morillas JBM, Vílchez-Gómez R,
Escobar VG. Relationship between objective acoustic indices
and subjective assessments for the quality of soundscapes. Appl
Acoust. 2015;97:1–10.
104. Maculewicz J, Erkut C, Serafin S. How can soundscapes affect the
preferred walking pace? Appl Acoust. 2016;114:230–9.
105. Aletta F, Kang J, Astolfi A, Fuda S. Differences in soundscape
appreciation of walking sounds from different footpath materials
in urban parks. Sustain Cities Soc. 2016;27:367–76.
106. Jin Y, Hong JY, Lavandier C, Lafon J, Axelsson Ö, Hurtig M. A
cross-national comparison in assessment of urban park
soundscapes in France, Korea, and Sweden through laboratory
experiments. Appl Acoust. 2018;133:107–17.
107. Hall DA, Irwin A, Edmondson-Jones M, Phillips S, Poxon JEW.
An exploratory evaluation of perceptual, psychoacoustic and
acoustical properties of urban soundscapes. Appl Acoust.
2013;74(2):248–54.
108. Hatfield J, van Kamp I, Job RFS. Clarifying Bsoundscapes^: ef-
fects of question format on reaction to noise from combined
sources. Acta Acustica United Acustica. 2006;92(6):922–8.
109. Hume K, Ahtamad M. Physiological responses to and sub-
jective estimates of soundscape elements. Appl Acoust.
2013;74(2):275–81.
110. Lavandier C, Defréville B. The contribution of sound source char-
acteristics in the assessment of urban soundscapes. Acta Acustica
United Acustica. 2006;92(6):912–21.
111. Payne SR. The production of a perceived restorativeness sound-
scape scale. Appl Acoust. 2013;74(2):255–63.
112. Weelankavil JP. International business research: Routledge, Taylor
& Francis Group; 2007.