Deriving a typology of soundscape design interventions

Abstract

In the last two decades, there has been a considerable uptick of soundscape studies. With various agents advocating for more diverse and inclusive approaches to urban acoustic environments, the need to establish practical guidelines arises. To support this process, the Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions (CSI) project was initiated, which provides an online repository for data collection and communication of soundscape interventions, globally. Within this framework, a soundscape intervention is understood as a location-specific design, aimed at preserving or enhancing the existing acoustic environment. The criteria that have to be met to classify a project as a soundscape intervention, as well as ways to implement and assess design improvements are currently being debated. To help identify and derive recurring strategies and aims in current practices, this paper categorizes 37 projects collected via the CSI platform by means of a five-type intervention typology, adopted from noise intervention literature. The collected projects are further classified in subtypes, based on the approaches used to influence the acoustic environment , as well as their level and stage of public involvement. Finally, the need to adapt the resulting typology to accommodate all current practices is discussed.

Full text

10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association
Turin, Italy • 11th – 15th September 2023 • Politecnico di Torino
DERIVING A TYPOLOGY OF SOUNDSCAPE DESIGN INTERVENTIONS
Cleopatra Moshona1∗Francesco Aletta2Xiaochao Chen2Andr´
e Fiebig1Helen Henze
Jian Kang2Andrew Mitchell2Tin Oberman2Brigitte Schulte-Fortkamp3Huan Tong2
1Engineering Acoustics, Institute of Fluid Dynamics and Technical Acoustics,
Technische Universit¨
at Berlin, Germany
2Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, University College London, UK
3Head-Genuit-Foundation, Herzogenrath-Kohlscheid, Germany
ABSTRACT
In the last two decades, there has been a considerable
uptick of soundscape studies. With various agents advo-
cating for more diverse and inclusive approaches to ur-
ban acoustic environments, the need to establish practical
guidelines arises. To support this process, the Catalogue
of Soundscape Interventions (CSI) project was initiated,
which provides an online repository for data collection
and communication of soundscape interventions, globally.
Within this framework, a soundscape intervention is un-
derstood as a location-specific design, aimed at preserving
or enhancing the existing acoustic environment. The crite-
ria that have to be met to classify a project as a soundscape
intervention, as well as ways to implement and assess de-
sign improvements are currently being debated. To help
identify and derive recurring strategies and aims in cur-
rent practices, this paper categorizes 37 projects collected
via the CSI platform by means of a five-type intervention
typology, adopted from noise intervention literature. The
collected projects are further classified in subtypes, based
on the approaches used to influence the acoustic environ-
ment, as well as their level and stage of public involve-
ment. Finally, the need to adapt the resulting typology to
accommodate all current practices is discussed.
Keywords: soundscape interventions, design, catalogue,
typology, classification, ISO/TS 12913-4
*Corresponding author: c.moshona@tu-berlin.de.
Copyright: ©2023 C. Moshona et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons At-
tribution 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the orig-
inal author and source are credited.
1. INTRODUCTION
The field of soundscape has long surpassed its status as a
complementary alternative to traditional noise control and
consolidated into an independent research discipline over
the years. Indeed, a recent scientometric study confirmed
a rapid growth of soundscape studies focusing on urban
environments on a global level with research outputs hav-
ing doubled in the last decade [1]. With various agents
of the built environment, including policymakers, advo-
cating for more diverse, inclusive and sustainable acoustic
environments [2–6], the soundscape concept has attracted
even more attention, because of its holistic, user-centered
approach in engaging with local communities [7,8]. How-
ever, despite the field’s growing popularity, conspicuous
empirical evidence showcasing the benefits of the sound-
scape approach is still lacking. Thus, the need to estab-
lish and deliver practical guidelines to implement and as-
sess successful soundscape designs arises. This is also re-
flected by Part 4 of the ISO/TS 12913 series currently be-
ing developed, which focuses on the assessment of sound-
scape investigation results. To this end, the Catalogue of
Soundscape Interventions (CSI) project was initiated to
collect and communicate comprehensive information on
implementations of soundscape-related measures world-
wide [9]. The aim is to identify best practices in sound-
scape design that could be used as a theoretical basis to
develop future design and planing strategies. Within this
context, the term “soundscape intervention” is understood
as a site-specific design, aimed at preserving or improving
an acoustic environment.
Having published and disseminated an online repos-
itory, the CSI project is now in its second phase of de-

10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association
Turin, Italy • 11th – 15th September 2023 • Politecnico di Torino
veloping a soundscape design taxonomy. To derive cri-
teria that qualify a site as a “soundscape intervention”, it
is necessary to document how local practitioners beyond
the academic and research context interpret this concept
by looking at real-word examples. This may facilitate
a better understanding of potential definitions, given that
other scholars have been debating about what would qual-
ify as a soundscape intervention, as opposed to an instal-
lation [10, 11]. It can also help uncover common design
approaches, recurring intervention patterns and levels. In
this paper we report on the 37 projects currently gathered
in the catalogue and categorize them based on their type,
level and stage of public involvement and the acoustic de-
sign approaches used.
2. METHODS
To identify project types, we adopted a classification
system, which was derived from a review prepared in
the framework of the World Health Organization (WHO)
guidelines for environmental noise [12] and was slightly
adapted in [13]. The framework includes five intervention
types: source, path, infrastructure, integral/design and re-
ceiver, see Figure 1. We further categorized the projects
based on their acoustic design approaches, building on
previous work [14]. Four approaches were identified, in-
cluding: architectural, mechanical, electroacoustic and bi-
ological/natural. Architectural approaches include addi-
tions of permanent, built structures and transformations
of spaces, including redefining and redesigning areas by
changing their functionality. Mechanical approaches take
advantage of physical and natural forces to create urban
sonic experiences. They often include structures and com-
ponents that are temporary and reversible. Electroacoustic
approaches make use of loudspeakers or computer devices
to directly play and synthesize sounds. Biological/natural
approaches are based on biophony and involve greenery
and wildlife enrichment, without additional interference
through installations. Finally, we categorized the submit-
ted projects based on their level of public involvement, as
well as the stage during which this occurred. It should be
noted that in this paper public involvement is understood
in the sense of user/consumer participation in research,
as defined in the guidelines and brief of the National In-
stitute of Health Research (NIHR) [15, 16], from which
we adopted three levels of public involvement: “consul-
tation”, “collaboration” and “user-led”. Stages of public
involvement were adapted slightly to fit the field of sound-
scape and include: (1) formal application, (2) design and
management, (3) implementation, (4) assessment and (5)
dissemination of the soundscape intervention. Based on
this analysis, we summarize recurring strategies and aims
and discuss limitations of the resulting typology.
Figure 1. Framework for noise intervention types
along the pathway, translated/adapted from [12, 13].
3. RESULTS
The geographical distribution of the sites currently listed
in the Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions (CSI) is
shown in Figure 2. As can be seen, the documented in-
terventions are located primarily in the United Kingdom,
Central Europe and the United States of America, while
the rest of the world remains underrepresented, with the
exception of Canada, Australia and Japan.
Most of the 37 sites currently listed in the catalogue
fall under type D of the classification system, see Table
1. Frequently, sites do not only belong to a single cate-
gory, but to a combination of categories, with type B/C–D
and D–E often complementing each other. Type A is only
rarely found among the soundscape intervention designs
reviewed. Depending on their type, the catalogued sites
seem to focus on different aims. Type A sites mainly aim
at reducing noise at the source by introducing speed limits,
modifying road surfaces and changing traffic flow. Type
B/C sites use sound insulation or barriers to ward off un-
wanted noise (minus design), but also redirect attention to
positive aspects. Type D sites seek to improve the acoustic
quality by actively adding positively associated, masking
sounds to the environment (plus design) and thereby often
adding to its recreational quality through the use of natural
elements, such as water or wind or greenery. Motives also

10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association
Turin, Italy • 11th – 15th September 2023 • Politecnico di Torino
Table 1. Intervention types, acoustic design approaches, levels and stages of public involvement of the 37
catalogued sites.
Site Type Approach Public involvement
Arizona Science Center D (m) –
Bamboo Garden B/C, D (a), (e) –
Biophony: SoundGarden D, E (e), (b) –
Birrarung Marr Park D, E (e), (m) collaboration (5)
Blue Moon D, E (e), (m) –
Ellen Reid Soundwalk E (e) –
Garden of Sound D (a), (m) –
Harmonic Bridge D, E (m), (e) –
Harmonic Conduit D, E (e), (m) –
Heaven’s Cloth D (e) –
Hen Klankenbos Sound Forest D, E (e), (m), (b) –
Imagination Playground D (a) –
Jim Ellis Freeway Park B/C, D (a) –
Lincoln Park D, E (a), (e) –
Musikiosk D, E (e) collaboration (1,2,3,4)
Musical Roads A, E (m) –
Nauener Platz B/C, D, E (a), (e) collaboration (2,3,4)
Neville Stress Underpass B/C, D, E (e) –
Pavilion of Echoes D (a) –
Pedalling SeaSides E (e), (m) –
PS 244 Primary School D, E (a) –
Salesforce Transit Center B/C, D (a), (m) –
Sea Cat Tail - Umi Tsukushi D, E (m) –
Sea Organ D, E (m) –
Sempione Park D (e) –
Sheaf Square B/C, D (a) –
Sustainable Urban Village A, B/C, D, E (a), (e) consultation (2,3)
Sydney Modern Project D, E (a), (e) –
The Music Box Village D, E (a), (m) collaboration (2,3,5)
The National September 11 Memorial B/C, D (a) –
Thames Barrier Park B/C, D (a) consultation (2,3,4)
Time Piece D, E (e) –
Urban Light Contacts E (e), (m) –
Urban Sound Planing - Brighton & Hove A, B/C, D, E (a), (e) consultation (2,3,4)
Vertical Water D (e) –
War Damaged Instrument E (e) –
Warwick Bar Master Plan D, E (b), (e) consultation (2,3)
Approaches key: (a) = architectural, (m) = mechanical, (e) = electroacoustic, (b) = biological/natural
Involvement key: (1) = application, (2) = design & management, (3) = implementation, (4) = assessment, (5) = dissemination

10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association
Turin, Italy • 11th – 15th September 2023 • Politecnico di Torino
Figure 2. Geographical overview of the 37 sites currently listed in the Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions
[17].
include encouraging exploration, redefining urban space,
reconstructing location-specific soundmarks, preserving
historical aspects, improving aesthetics and fostering a
deeper connection to the surrounding environment and na-
ture. Sites which classify as type E interventions are often
art projects with a particular focus on creating immersive
experiences and promoting engagement, awareness and
social cohesion through the sonic environment. In this
context, awareness is synonymous to being more atten-
tive of the sonic environment, but is less concerned with
didactic/informational aspects that directly influence in-
dividual behavior. Among the acoustic design approaches
used, electroacoustic approaches seem to be the most pop-
ular way to influence the acoustic environment, followed
by architectural and mechanical approaches or mixed. Bi-
ological/natural approaches are rarely used and if so, only
in combination. Overall, it is difficult to assess public in-
volvement, because only very few interventions provide
clear and concise documentation. Usually, only direct
stakeholders or clients are included in the roll-out pro-
cess. In those cases, in which public involvement docu-
mentation is available, it primarily entails consultation or
collaboration and mostly takes place during the design,
implementation and to a lesser extent, the assessment of
soundscape interventions.
4. DISCUSSION
The geographical distribution of the projects currently
listed in the Catalogue of Soundscape Interventions con-
firms that soundscape approaches are mainly used and
communicated in first world countries that have clearly
formulated environmental policies, supporting infrastruc-
ture and funding possibilities. These are at the same time
countries that share a network of soundscape communi-
ties. In future, a greater effort should be made to investi-
gate soundscape interventions outside this network and to
encourage dissemination of soundscape interventions out-
side the academic context.
Though the adopted classification system is useful
for identifying common practices, it is not always clear
where to draw a line between different types. Based on

10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association
Turin, Italy • 11th – 15th September 2023 • Politecnico di Torino
this systematic evaluation, it becomes evident that prac-
titioners use mixed methodology when designing sound-
scape interventions. Types seem to flow into and comple-
ment each other, rather than being categorically different.
This becomes clear when reviewing the formulated aims
of the different projects and the strategies practitioners use
to achieve these. Unfortunately, problems and aims are
not always clearly formulated, making difficult to assess
whether a solution has been reached and whether the inter-
vention significantly contributes to the betterment of the
acoustic environment. There also seems to be very little
information available in regards to the curation and main-
tenance of soundscape interventions. However, this aspect
is particularly important, because the long-term value of
soundscape interventions directly depends on it. The ab-
sence of concise information on the aforementioned top-
ics might also explain why validation studies to determine
the impact of soundscape interventions in the long run
are lacking, even though they are sorely needed. In some
cases it is also unclear whether the intervention is still in
place or whether it was temporary. It is therefor neces-
sary to communicate these points more clearly and more
openly in future.
Regarding the different approaches used, it becomes
evident that the potential of biological/natural approaches,
such as renaturation, which promotes biodiversity and
ecological balance, has not yet been sufficiently tapped
into, although this type of approach would be the most
sustainable and efficient of them all, given that it requires
no maintenance, has little to no energy costs, is a natural
form of interference, leaves no litter behind and can con-
tribute to better thermal comfort (temperature cooling in
cities). Green also supports physiological and psycholog-
ical restoration, thereby contributing to healthier environ-
ments [18].
Finally, the analysis shows that public involvement is
still underused, which seems paradoxical given that the
soundscape approach calls for more user-centered, inclu-
sive designs. This could perhaps be explained by the fact
that urban planning projects often have a strict time plan
and that involving the public can be quite time-consuming.
The possibility to include the public increases when meth-
ods are mixed and is highest with interventions of the type
D and E. Best practice examples, which are nevertheless
over or almost a decade in place, are the projects Nauener
Platz (2009) and Urban Sound Planing in Brighton and
Hove (2014), see Table 1. These projects have involved
the public, including residents, in form of focus groups,
local expert interviews, soundwalks and surveys during
several stages of the soundscape design intervention pro-
cess. A more recent example is the Music Box Village
(2016) project, which promotes community engagement
and is open to voluntary work. A temporary, but neverthe-
less iconic intervention in terms of methodology and pub-
lic involvement was the Muiskiosk, which was launched
in 2015 and followed a democratic soundscape approach.
All in all though, these projects are the exception to the
rule. Public involvement in all stages of soundscape inter-
ventions should therefor be encouraged more, embracing
aspects of fairness and equality across underrepresented
populations, interest groups, areas and countries.
5. CONCLUSION
Although the soundscape approach has gained consider-
ably in significance over the last decades, practical guide-
lines that could serve as a theoretical basis to develop,
implement and assess future soundscape designs are still
missing. Therefor, an online repository was created and
disseminated with the aim to identify and collect best
practices. In this paper we derived a soundscape design
intervention typology for 37 projects currently included
in the CSI. Our analysis showed that almost all projects
were implemented in first world countries, often without
reported intensive engagement of the local communities.
Most of the soundscape interventions were related to inter-
vention types addressing the infrastructure (B/C), design
elements (D) and the receiver (E) and thus went beyond
conventional noise control measures at source or path
level. Among the acoustic design approaches used, elec-
troacoustic applications seem to be the most popular way
in soundscape interventions, followed by architectural and
mechanical approaches. In several cases, more than one
approach was applied indicating the integral design con-
cept to enhance the acoustic environment as much as pos-
sible. Surprisingly, nature-oriented design approaches in
reported soundscape interventions are rarely included in
the database so far, although these approaches offer sev-
eral advantages in regards to city climate, biodiversity or
increasing the level of restoration. To develop a mean-
ingful soundscape design taxonomy and to determine real
world examples indicating successful design and interven-
tion practices, it is necessary to extend the database fur-
ther. Therefore, soundscape researchers and practitioners
around the world are invited to add soundscape interven-
tion entries not reported so far, even if they were of tem-
porary nature.

10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association
Turin, Italy • 11th – 15th September 2023 • Politecnico di Torino
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the
HEAD-Genuit Foundation for funding the project Cata-
logue of Soundscape Interventions (CSI). The UCL au-
thors are also supported by the European Research Coun-
cil Advanced Grant (740696) on “Soundscape Indices”.
7. REFERENCES
[1] J. Yang and H. Lu, “Visualizing the knowledge do-
main in urban soundscape: A scientometric analysis
based on citespace,” International Journal of Environ-
mental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 21,
2022.
[2] European Parliament and Council, Directive
2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and man-
agement of environmental noise, 2002. Publications
Office of the European Union.
[3] European Environment Agency, Good practice guide
on quiet areas, 2014. Publications Office of the Euro-
pean Union.
[4] European Environment Agency, Quiet areas in Eu-
rope: the environment unaffected by noise pollution,
2016. Publications Office of the European Union.
[5] Welsh Government, Noise and Soundscape Action
Plan 2018 - 2023, 2018. Ministry of Environment.
[6] United Nations Environment Programme, Frontiers
2022: Noise, Blazes and Mismatches – Emerging Is-
sues of Environmental Concern, 2022.
[7] B. Schulte-Fortkamp and A. Fiebig, “Soundscape
analysis in a residential area : An evaluation of noise
and people’s mind,” Acta Acustica United With Acus-
tica, vol. 92, pp. 875–880, 2006.
[8] B. Edda, D. Steele, and C. Guastavino, “Festivals and
events as everyday life in Montreals entertainment dis-
trict,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 8, 2022.
[9] C. Moshona, F. Aletta, H. Henze, X. Chen,
A. Mitchell, T. Oberman, H. Tong, A. Fiebig, J. Kang,
and B. Schulte-Fortkamp, “What is a soundscape in-
tervention? exploring definitions and identification
criteria and a platform to gather real-world examples,”
in Internoise, 51st International Congress and Expo-
sition on Noise Control Engineering, 21.-24. August,
2022.
[10] D. Steele, E. Bild, C. Tarlao, and C. Guastavino,
“Soundtracking the public space: Outcomes of
the musikiosk soundscape intervention,” Interna-
tional Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, vol. 16, no. 10, 2019.
[11] V. Fraisse, M. M. Wanderley, and C. Guastavino,
“Comprehensive framework for describing interactive
sound installations: Highlighting trends through a sys-
tematic review,” Multimodal Technologies and Inter-
action, vol. 5, no. 4, 2021.
[12] I. van Kamp, A. L. Brown, and D. Schreckenberg,
“Soundscape approaches in urban planning: implica-
tions for an intervention framework,” in Proceedings
of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics : in-
tegrating 4th EAA Euroregio 2019: 9.-13. September,
pp. 405–410, 2019.
[13] A. Fiebig, B. Schulte-Fortkamp, S. Moebus,
D. Schreckenberg, and R. Weinandy, “Wie klingt
die Stadt der Zukunft?,” Akustik Journal, vol. 01,
pp. 7–14, 2021.
[14] H. Henze, C. Moshona, and A. Fiebig, “Katal-
ogisierung von L¨
armschutzmaßnahmen mit Gestal-
tungsaspekten,” in Fortschritte der Akustik - DAGA
2023, 49. Jahrestagung f ¨
ur Akustik, Deutsche
Gesellschaft f¨
ur Akustik e.V. (DEGA), 2023.
[15] National Institute for Health Research, Briefing notes
for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health
and social care research, 2021.
[16] National Institute for Health Research, Involving
users in the research process. A ’how to’ guide for
researchers, 2010. King’s College, Guy’s and St.
Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust.
[17] Google My Maps, Soundscape Interventions Map,
2023.
[18] T. van Renterghem, “Towards explaining the posi-
tive effect of vegetation on the perception of environ-
mental noise,” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,
vol. 40, pp. 133–144, 2019. Urban green infrastructure
– connecting people and nature for sustainable cities.