PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Soundscape planning as a tool for urban planning
Moritz LIPPOLD1; Bryce LAWRENCE2
1

Technical University of Dortmund, Germany

2

Technical University of Dortmund, Germany

ABSTRACT
Dealing with noise is one of the major challenges cities are facing. Spatial planning and noise legislation inGermany is commonly based on the idea of noise avoidance and noise control, whereby noise is treated as awaste product. At the same time, there is consensus that quantitative noise reduction is not enough to address
the acoustic environment. Therefore a readjustment of the instruments and methods of spatial planning isnecessary. As a suitable alternative in thinking about noise the soundscape approach might open up new,more holistic perspectives by considering the acoustic environment as a resource. However, there is currently
a lack of practical approaches to include the idea of soundscapes in spatial planning. This study asks thequestion: How can a soundscape planning approach be integrated as an instrument for spatial planning inGermany? To answer the research question, a systematic review of existing literature and a summary ofGerman noise-related policy instruments will provide a framework of how sound and noise is treated inGermanys legal system and give insight into how a soundscape approach could be integrated into the German
spatial planning system.
Keywords: Soundscape Planning, Urban Planning, Spatial Planning Instruments

1. INTRODUCTION
Dealing with noise is one of the major challenges cities are facing, as noise is one of the greatest
environmental risks to human health today. So far, planning practice has focused on the approach of
reducing, avoiding and combating noise. The acoustic environment is considered from the viewpointof noise as a waste product to be reduced. The sound level is the decisive and often exclusive
assessment criterion. Also, dealing with the issue is understood as a restriction of the planning process.
At the same time, there is a consensus in many disciplines that this quantitative noise reduction is not
sufficient to adress the acoustic environment (1). In order to find a suitable way of dealing with urban
sound environments in the future, it will be necessary to readjust the instruments and methods ofspatial planning (2). There is a demand for new approaches to understand the acoustic reality, which
aim at a more differentiated and holistic consideration. The soundscape approach is discussed in theliterature as a suitable alternative approach to the consideration of acoustic environments ( 3). The
soundscape is the acoustic environment as perceived by humans, whose character is determined by theaction and interaction of natural and human factors (4). By focusing on the individual position of thelisteners, additional knowledge about the acoustic environment can be gained. The measurable
physical sound properties are supplemented by the specification and differentiation of desired andunwanted sounds. If the listening experience becomes the subject of design, the acoustic environment
can be actively included in the planning and design process (5). The soundscape approach not onlyoffers an analysis tool, but can also be used in the planning process. Soundscape planning aims todesign and improve the soundscape of a place. The approach can therefore be a sensible supplement tonoise avoidance and noise abatement measures as well as a contribution to a positive acoustic design ofplaces (6). Contrary to the theoretical agreement, practical approaches on how to integrate soundscapeplanning into planning are currently lacking. The existing gap between theory and practice inincluding the sound environment in planning and design indicates a need for research in order to findholistic approaches for a sustainable handling of urban soundscapes (3,7).
The overall goal of this research is to provide new imputs to spatial planning based on the12

moritz.lippold@tu-dortmund.debryce.lawrence@tu-dortmund.de7035

soundscape approach and to discuss options for the integration of soundscape planning as a planning
tool in Germany. The following research question will therefore be investigated: ‘ How can theapproach of soundscape planning be integrated as a planning instrument into spatial planning
practice in Germany?’. Sub-questions are also formed: A1: ‘What role does the acoustic environment
play in spatial planning practice in Germany today?; A2: ‘What are the current approaches tointegrating the soundscape approach into planning practice?’; A3: ‘What challenges andopportunities result from the integration of the soundscape approach into planning practice inGermany?’.
The relevance of the topic for spatial planning and the legal foundations and planning instruments
for dealing with noise in planning practice in Germany are laid out in section 2. In addition, an insight
into soundscape research will be given. This will be followed by a discussion of sub -question A1.
Section 3 forms the analytical part of the study, that shows how the soundscape approach can be
integrated into planning processes on the basis of the systematic literature research. Since extensive
literature exists on the individual subject areas of soundscape and noise in spatial planning, but only afew publications consider both subject areas together, the literature search aims to examine theinterface more closely. The databases Scopus, Web of Science and SAGE Journals were searched on
the basis of various keyword terms. In addition, the specialist database JASA Express Letters was
included. The search was limited to articles that have been published in English or German in the last
10 years and are freely accessible to students of the TU Dortmund. The search results were initiallynarrowed down by screening the titles and abstracts of the articles. In order to avoid relevant literature
not beeing covered by the search grid, a reference search was carried out. In this procedure, 30
publications were identified. Based on the general content analytical process model according to P.
Mayring, the literature was systematically evaluated (8). The material was filtered using defined
categories which include the spatial outline of the planning. Furthermore, the methodologicalapproach of the soundscape approaches was examined and whether qualitative or quantitative methods
or a combination of both were applied. Finally, it was examined whether reference was made toexisting planning instruments. Thus, the current state of research regarding the integration of thesoundscape idea into planning processes is mapped and a contribution is made to answeringsub-question A2. Based on the insights gained, expert interviews were conducted with the authorities
responsible for noise abatement planning in the three cities of Bochum, Duisburg and Essen. Starting
points for the soundscape idea in the planning process were discussed and possible opportunities andchallenges for integration into practice were examined. The results are listed in section 3.2 along withthe discussion of sub-question A3.

2. THEORETICAL BIAS
2.1 Relevance of soundscape approach for spatial planning
People's health and well-being depend on many factors and can only be influenced by politics andadministrative action to a certain extent. But it is precisely the decisions of spatial planning that havean effect on the living and working environment over long periods of time that can have a decisive
influence on people's live. Spatial changes are often accompanied by burdens on health and theenvironment. Noise has been shown to cause a number of health problems and these effects do not only
occur at a certain noise level, but can also be caused by low and long -term noise exposure (9).
According to the WHO, health is a ‘state of complete physical, mental and social well-being" (10), in
order to maintain and promote health, it is necessary to preventively minimize the risks and burdens.
At the same time, it is important to strengthen the individual health resources available to people tocope with stress. These are largely determined by the everyday living envi ronment. Following the
Ottawa Charter of the WHO, health promotion serves to create healthy living environments and thus
also healthy cities. Health care and health promotion are an important field of spatial planning (11).
Spatial planning can be understood as the totality of measures to develop guiding principles for an
ideal state of the space to be striven for and to create the prerequisites for its realization. Thus, spatialplanning is faced with complex problems that require an interdisciplinary approach and the inclusionof different perspectives (12). As the acoustic space is omnipresent and has a decisive influence on
health, well-being and human possibilities of action, an interdisciplinary approach to the acoustic
environment can therefore lead to increased acoustic awareness in spatial planning .

7036

2.2 Noise-related policy in Germany
Noise protection regulations are anchored in European Union (EU) law as well as at the federal
level in Germany. EU legislation primarily includes noise legislation on emission sources. Noise
reduction at the point of immission is addressed by the Environmental Noise Directive (END) and the
Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment. In the 1970s, the first source-related noise
regulations were introduced at European level by Directive 70/157/EEC which includes permissible
decibel limit values for different vehicle types. This was followed by further regulations for various
noise sources. In 2002, the END addressed noise pollution more strongly on the recipient side for the
first time (13). The END aims directly at improving the noise pollution situation of people byidentifying problem areas and developing action plans to solve them. Environmental noise is definedas unwanted or harmful outdoor noise caused by human activity. The main tasks of the END are theuniform presentation and assessment of noise in the form of noise maps, th e identification of quiet
areas, the establishment of noise management action plans to reduce noise and the provision of
information to the public on the effects of environmental noise (14). Another relevant requirement forarea-related noise protection is the environmental assessment, which is regulated in two EU directives.
The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) and the Directive on the assessmentof the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment (SEA Directive) are in tended to ensurethat the effects of individual projects, plans and programs are recorded and assessed. Noise is also oneof the relevant impacts in the EIA and SEA directives (13).
In Germany there is no comprehensive noise protection law at the federal level. The provisions
applicable to noise protection are sectorally based on various noise sources . However, the regulations
diverge with regard to the limit values laid down and the legal situation is particularly complex (13,15).
Noise abatement regulations are primarily to be found in public law and can be distinguished between
source-based and area-based approaches. Regarding source-related approaches, the Federal Immission
Control Act (Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz BImSchG) is of central importance. The BImSchG aims
to protect people from harmful environmental impacts and to prevent the occurrence of these. Harmfulenvironmental impacts are defined as immissions that are likely to cause hazards, considerable
disadvantages or considerable nuisance to the general public or the neighborhood , and noise can beclassified as such an immission. Further concretization does take place in subordinate ordinances andadministrative regulations, through different limit values for individual noise sources like trade andtraffic. The separate consideration of the source-related approaches is contrasted with the area-related
regulations. In the context of urban land-use planning, noise is an object of consideration. Urban land
use planning serves to prepare and manage the structural and other use of land in the municipality.
Urban land-use planning includes the Land Use Plan (Flächennutzungsplan, FNP), which is to be
drawn up for the entire municipal territory, and the Development Plan (Bebauungsplan, B-Plan) to be
developed from it, which regulates the development of land plots. The Federal Immission Control
Ordinances and the DIN standard 18005 can serve as orientation aids in the weighing process. The
binding nature of the orientation aids, however, depend on the respective planning situation. The limit
values for noise vary, so that no uniform noise protection is guaranteed in spatial planning (13,16,17).
Whereas urban land-use planning only reacts to noise in relation to building sites, the national
implementation of the END offers the instrument of noise abatement planning(Lärmminderungsplanung LMP). In contrast to the assessment of noise as a harmful effect on theenvironment in the BimSchG, the concept of environmental noise no longer presupposes themateriality of a disadvantage and a nuisance, so that the threshold for assessing a sound as noise islowered. Noise maps for the presentation of the noise situation are defined as instruments, which serveas the basis for noise action planning. Within the framework of noise action planning, noise abatement
measures are to be laid down. The determination of the measures is at the discretion of the municipality.
Likewise, 'quiet areas' are to be designated. However, noise reduction plans do not result in an
obligation to implement. In addition to the source-related and area-related regulations, noise is also thesubject of environmental assessments (EIAs). These are intended to integrate environmental concerns
in procedural terms. The European requirements for the environmental assessment can be found innational law in the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG) and in the Building Code (BauGB).
The subject of the Environmental Impact Assessment is the environmental impact on the objects ofprotection defined in § 2 UVPG, such as people and their health. The relevant impacts also include
noise. Environmental assessment instruments include the environmental impact assessment (EIA) andthe strategic environmental impact assessment (SEA).

7037

2.3 Planning instruments
At the local level, the legal bases find their practical application. Planning instruments areunderstood in this paper as tools to be able to realize planning (18). The planning instruments are
divided into formal and informal instruments. Formal instruments include legally binding plans andprograms, while informal instruments are not legally binding. In addition the procedural instruments
examine the environmental and noise impacts when drawing up plans and programs and deciding on
the admissibility of projects. The formal instruments of noise protection is the urban land-use planningwith the FNP and the B-Plan. Even at the FNP level, noise conflicts can, to a limited extent, be dealt
with at an early stage. The FNP has no direct legal effect on third parties and private individuals, but itis the basis for the B plan. A significantly more effective handling of noise can be regulated in the Bplan, as it has a direct legal effect as a statute. The scope of the B -Plan is limited to building areas.
Likewise, as shown in the previous chapter, there are no fixed assessment standards for noise. Sincevarious guidelines are referred to for the limit and orientation values, there is a range for the definitionof measures and the weighting of noise in the consideration process (13,19,20). Informal instruments
include noise maps and noise action maps, which offer the possibility of a conceptual andcommunity-wide approach to acoustic environments. For this purpose, the municipalities have avariety of measures to choose from. In addition, the information content regarding the acoustic
situation vis-à-vis the public should be emphasized. The implementation of the noise action planningis restricted by the lack of binding effect (13,14). The process-oriented instruments of environmental
audits ensure that environmental protection concerns are considered and, in this context, the noise
effects are also taken into account. The EIA instrument starts with the planning of concrete projects
and must be included in the assessment process via admissibility. Within the scope of the EIA, theeffects of projects on the protected goods are examined. Environmental assessments ensure that noise
impacts are taken into account in the decision-making on the admissibility of projects and plans. Noiseis only one of many environmental impacts that are considered. The environmental assessments do nothave any direct legal effect. They are only to be taken into account when drawing up plans (13).
2.4 Soundscape Research
R. Murray Schafer takes up the term soundscape in the 1970s and coins the meaning of its content
in connection with the concept of landscape. Landscape can be understood as an area, as perceived bypeople, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors"(21,22). Consequently, the soundscape can also be described as the acoustic environment of a place
whose character is determined by the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.
According to Schafer, the sounds of the environment refer to reality, so the soundscape as a whole ofall perceived sound events becomes a readable sign system.
Soundscape research opens up various analytical perspectives on the acoustic environmen t. There
are approaches that cover the physical structure, the human perception of sound (1,23). Regarding thephysical structure of the acoustic environment, the research area of Acoustic Ecology provides a set ofquantitative methods. Acoustic Ecology deals with the relationships between humans, flora, fauna andthe acoustic environment. Several acoustic indices have been developed in recent years. Although thesoundscape indices were primarily developed for the analysis of natural sound environments, they canalso be used in an urban context. In addition to the soundscape indices, psychoacoustic parameters canalso be used to describe acoustic environments. These include sharpness, roughness, fluctuation andtone. These can be determined on the basis of an analysis of a questionnaire in ISO 12913-2, and awide range of additional information can be obtained from such soundscape analysis (1,6). With regard
to subjective evaluation, the interface of social science and psychological research areas provides anumber of qualitative methods. The premise is pursued that human perception is a suitable evaluation
yardstick. An analysis of the language used to describe the soundscape, targeted questionnaires andsound walks provide insights into the listener's relationship to the environmen t (23,24). Soundscaperesearch thus offers a range of qualitative and quantitative research methods that can lead to acomprehensive data basis, also for the investigation of urban quarters.
In addition to the analytical dimension, soundscape research also includes the question of
long-term design, improvement and maintenance of the acoustic environment. By also considering
desired sounds, visions and objectives for planning can be derived. The terms soundscape planning /design/management/policy result from the analogy to the landscape term and imply the idea of aconscious and active handling of the acoustic environment (4,6).
Soundscape research has been characterized by a process of harmonization and standardization

7038

with regard to the research framework and the use of terminology in recent years. An example of theharmonization efforts is the ISO 12913-1 and ISO/TS 12913-2, which provides uniform definitions aswell as methods for data collection. Due to the growing standardization of the research field, thewillingness to integrate the soundscape concept into the planning processes is increasing (25,7).
2.5 Interim conclusion
The first sub-question A1 can be answered to the effect that acoustic environments are conside red
from the point of view of noise in planning practice. Noise conflicts are to be avoided through limit andorientation values. With regard to the instruments, it can be seen that noise is taken into account bothin binding urban land-use planning and in procedural environmental assessments, but only as a matterof consideration. This results in a wider, but not clearly defined, scope of action for planning. Only the
LMP aims specifically at improving the acoustic environment. However, the LMP does not ma ke itcompulsory to implement noise protection measures. The specialist literature contains various pointsof criticism of the existing planning practice. One point of criticism is the lack of uniform legislationin Germany. Because noise sources are considered separately, there are no suitable assessment criteria
for the interaction of different noise sources and combined acoustic effects (15). Another point ofcriticism relates to quantitative and technical noise assessment, which, on the one hand attempt s toobjectify noise contradicts what noise is, namely a subjective reaction, and on the other hand it has
been shown that the sound level as the single decisive basis for evaluation has only little informativevalue. There is a demand for additional assessment criteria (17,20,27). Finally, the necessity of finding
holistic and interdisciplinary approaches becomes apparent. Overall spatial planning concepts andmulti-sectoral approaches can lead to noise problems being addressed at an early stage. Based on these
problems, the soundscape approach is described by various sides as a new paradigm for noise
protection policy. The Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial
Development (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, BBSR) and the European
Environment Agency also propose using the soundscape approach as a basis for assessing noise within
the framework of LMP (20,28).

3. ANALYSIS
3.1 Practical soundscape approaches
The literature research shows that there are already various approaches integrating the soundscapeapproach into spatial planning, namely as individual pilot projects. A uniform and standardized
approach does not yet exist. To answer the sub-question A2, the evaluation of the literature research
makes it clear that the soundscape approach can be integrated into planning both on a small scale andon a large scale and is characterized by a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. On alarge scale, the soundscape approach primarily serves the differentiated an alysis of the acoustic
situation. In the landscape area and on an urban level, a combination of quantitative and qualitative
methods is used to analyze the acoustic situation. The combination of these methods enables adifferentiated evaluation and allows conclusions to be drawn about quality, animation, perception andenvironmental quality. In most cases, the data are considered in connection with other georeferenced
information, such as spatial structure, traffic density, and proximity to surrounding uses. The analysis
is usually presented in the form of sound maps, psychoaoustic maps and soundscape maps reflecting
the perceived acoustic environment. On a small scale, the soundscape approach can be applied not only
to analyze but also to concretize measures. The focus is often set on public parks, green spaces andsquares. Here, too, the analysis of the acoustic environment is carried out using both quantitative andqualitative methods. The integration of space users can on the one hand provide important information
and at the same time lead to an increased acceptance of planning. The combination of the methods
allows a differentiated characterization of the acoustic environment. Thus, on the one hand, it ispossible to distinguish between desired and unwanted sounds, and on the other hand, site-specific andidentity-creating sounds can also be recorded. Concrete measures can be derived from psychoacoustic
analysis, which consider both desired and unwanted sounds. It is also possible to locate possible area s
for a small-scale sound design, such as the integration of water sounds or the use of sound attenuation
structure. Since both scale levels are covered, it can be seen that the soundscape approach can be used
independently of scale. The combination of the methods shows that the soundscape approach can be auseful supplement to the quantitative noise assessment of current noise protection policies. The
quantitative methods are supplemented by the repertoire of social science methods of surveys and7039

interviews. Since the methods primarily serve the analysis of the acoustic environment, they are usedat the beginning of the planning processes. The resulting measures go beyond noise reduction andinclude the highlighting of positively perceived sounds. The publications show that themethodological repertoire of soundscape research can provide an important basis for planning. As
most publications are linked to noise abatement planning, this reinforces the proposal of the BBSR andthe European Environment Agency (29-56).
3.2 Perspectives of noise abatement practice
The evaluation of expert interviews indicated that noise mapping is a suitable instrument forrecording focal points of noise. Noise action planning has only a minor effect, as the financial means
for implementing the measures are often lacking. The noise indices on which noise mapping is based
form a suitable basis for identifying noise focal points. However, the municipalities also consider otherdata bases to be useful for noise assessment. Online surveys are already used to identify 'quiet areas'.
This shows the potential for further evaluation methods. This assessment coincides with the criticism
of the purely quantitative and technical noise assessment and the demand for more differentiatedassessment criteria listed in section 2.5. The authorities show a fundamental openness towards new
approaches such as the integration of the soundscape idea. Sub-question A3 can be answered to theeffect that the integration of the soundscape approach can be seen as an opportunity for a differentiatedconsideration of the acoustic environment. The approach is also seen as an opportunity to better
communicate the noise situation to the population. Restrictions can be seen in the fact that theauthorities lack the financial means for further measures. It also shows that the focus should continue
to be on reducing and avoiding traffic noise.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The main research question can be answered to the effect that soundscape planning can be
integrated into planning practice in Germany as a supplement to the instruments of LMP. Noise
mapping is an important tool for identifying noise focal points. In addition, the soundscape approach
could be used for a deeper analysis of the acoustic environment. The combination of quantitat ive andqualitative methods of soundscape research allows a more detailed characterization of the acoustic
environment, taking into account all the noise sources involved. On the one hand, the use ofsoundscape indices and psychoacoustic parameters allows an investigation of the physicalcomposition of the sound environment beyond the noise level, on the other hand subjective evaluations
are included and made easier to handle for planning. Thus, the view on possible options for action is
widened by considering not only the negative aspects of noise, but also the positive aspects of sounds.
Noise maps can be supplemented with psychoacoustic maps, sound maps and soundscape maps. The
increasing standardization of the methods by ISO 121913-2 can help to increase the acceptance ofsoundscape methods for planning (25). The soundscape approach can be used in a meaningful way,especially with regard to the identification of 'quiet areas'. Looking at the positive aspects of a soundenvironment makes it possible to capture the advantages, benefits and information content of theacoustic environment and the importance of acoustic environments for health and well-being can beemphasized. By understanding the acoustic environment as a resource, a contribution can be made t o
the preservation, care and protection of good quality soundscapes.
The increasing noise pollution in cities has causes that are rooted in the patterns of life and behavior
in our society. Noise management must therefore continue to focus on noise reduction in order tocounter traffic noise in particular. The soundscape approach can at least open up a new perspective andcreate a greater awareness of the importance of the sound environment. The interdisciplinarity ofsoundscape research can provide a suitable framework for discussions on the question 'How does ahealthy city sound?’. Based on of the results of this research, further open questions arise. A
comparative study of the legal framework and noise abatement practices of other countries could
reveal new approaches to dealing with noise. Further research is also needed on the application ofquantitative soundscape methods in urban space. Especially the soundscape indices should be further
tested and improved with regard to their applicability in urban space. The health effects of asoundscape should be taken into account. Finally, important design criteria for urban planning anddevelopment could be derived from the findings of soundscape research. A soundscape design guide
could help to integrate the acoustic environment into the planning and design process and thus
contribute to more livable and healthier cities.

7040

REFERENCES
1. Schulte-Fortkamp B. Lärmminderung in der Stadtplanung. In: Böhme C, editor. Handbuch Stadtplanung
und Gesundheit. 1. Aufl. Bern: Huber; 2012. p. 151–65.
2. Androsch P, Sedmak F, Wiesner J. Das menschengerechte Schallwellenmeer: Von der Lärmvermeidug
zur Akustischen Raumplanung.
3. Sturm U, Bürgin M, editors. Stadtklang: Wege zu einer Hörenswerten Stadt. Zürich: 2016.
4. Brown AL. Advancing the concepts of soundscapes and soundscape planning. Proceedings of Acoustics
2011; (115).
5. Adams M, Davies W, Bruce N. Soundscapes: an urban planning process map. In: 38th International
Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering 2009: INTER-NOISE 2009 ; Ottawa, Canada,
23 - 26 August 2009. Red Hook, NY: Curran; 2010.
6. Kang J, Schulte-Fortkamp B, editors. Soundscape and the built environment. Boca Raton, London, New
York: CRC Press; 2016.
7. Aletta F, Xiao J. What are the Current Priorities and Challenges for (Urban) Soundscape Research?
Challenges 2018; 9(1):16.
8. Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken; 2015.
9. Europe. Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise: Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in
Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
10. World Health Organization. Constitution of the world health organization.
11. Baumgart S. Räumliche Planung und Öffentliche Gesundheit: Eine historische Verknüpfung. In:
Baumgart S, Köckler H, Ritzinger A, Rüdiger A, editors. Planung für gesundheitsfördernde Städte.
Hannover, Hannover: ARL Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung; 2018. p. 20–36.
12. Scholich D. Raumplanung. In: Ritter E-H, editor. Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. 4., neu bearb.
Aufl. Hannover: ARL; 2005. p. 893–8.
13. Kupfer D. Rechtliche Grundlagen. In: Popp C, editor. Lärmschutz in der Verkehrs- und Stadtplanung:Handbuch Vorsorge, Sanierung, Ausführung. Bonn, Bonn: Kirschbaum Verlag; 2016. p. 105–54.
14. Heinrichs E, Leben J, Cancik P. Ruhige Gebiete: Eine Fachbroschüre für die Lärmaktionsplanung.
Dessau-Roßlau; November 2018.
15. G, Bernhard S. Lärmschutz in der Planung.
16. Franßen Y. Über die Bewältigung von Lärmkonflikten in der Stadtentwicklung. Deutsches
Verwaltungsblatt 2018; 133(8):480–92.
17. Berkemann J. Ein Überblick über die höchstrichterliche Rechtssprechung zum Lärmschutz. In:
Spannowsky W, editor. Lärmschutz in der Bauleitplanung und bei der Zulassung von Bauvorhaben.
Köln: Heymann; 2003
18. Ritter E-H, Benz A. Methoden und Instrumente räumlicher Planung: Handbuch. Hannover: ARL; 1998.
19. Porger K-W. Darstellungs- und Festsetzungsmöglichkeiten für die Bewältigung der Lärmproblematik inder Bauleitplanung. In: Spannowsky W, editor. Lärmschutz in der Bauleitplanung und bei der Zulassung
von Bauvorhaben. Köln: Heymann; 2003.
20. Mazur H, Theine W, Lauenstein D, Schuster S, Weisner C, Nöllgen R et al. Lärmrelevanz und
EU-Anforderungen: Erfordernisse, Abgrenzungens- und Anpassungsprozesse zum Lärmschutz; imExperimentellen Wohnungs- und Städtebau (ExWoSt) des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau undStadtentwicklung. Hannover; Dezember 2007.
21. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention. Florence; 2000. European Treaty Series 176.
22. Schafer RM, Breitsameter S. Die Ordnung der Klänge: Eine Kulturgeschichte des Hörens. Neu übers.,
durchges. und erg. dt. Ausg. Mainz: Schott; 2010.
23. Farina A. Soundscape ecology: Principles, patterns, methods and applications. Dordrecht, Heidelberg,
New York, London: Springer; 2014..
24. Kropp W, Forssén J, Estévez-Mauriz L. Urban sound planning: The SONORUS project. Gothenburg,
Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Applied Acoustics; 2016.
25. Fiebig A, Schulte-Fortkamp B. Soundscape - Fortschrtitte in der Standartisierung auf internationaler
Ebene. Akustik Journal 2019; 2019(01):36–43.
26. Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland. Schutz vor Lärm und Schutz der Ruhe. Berlin; 2013.
27. Issing H, Kruppa Barbara. Zum gegenwärtigen Erkenntnissttand der Lärmforschung: Notwendigkeit
eines Paradigmenwechselns. Umweltmedizin in Forschung und Praxis 2001.
28. Nugent C, Paviotti M, Bloomfield A, Kephalopoulos S, Rasmussen S, Blanes N et al. Good practiceguide on quiet areas. Luxembourg: Publications Office; 2014.
29. Brown AL, Muhar A. An approach to the acoustic design of outdoor space. Journal of Environmental

7041

Planning and Management 2004; 47(6):827–42.
30. Coensel B de, Botteldooren. Acoustic Designn of Early Stage Urban Planning. In: International
Conference on Designing Soundscape for Sustainable Urban Development; 2010.
31. Lavia L, Easteal M, Close D, Witchel H, Axelson Ö, Ware, Martyn, Dixon, Max Dixion, editors.
Sounding Brighton: practical approaches towards better soundscapes; 2012.
32. Bosshard A, Maag T. Klangraumgestaltung Chancen im Lärm: Fünf Fallbeispiele im urbaen Raum desKantons Zürich; Mai 2012.
33. Brambilla G, Gallo V, Zambon G. The soundscape quality in some urban parks in Milan, Italy. Int J
Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10(6):2348–69.
34. Jennings P, Cain R. A framework for improving urban soundscapes. Applied Acoustics 2013;
74(2):293–9.
35. Liu J, Kang J, Behm H, Luo T. Landscape spatial pattern indices and soundscape perceotion in a
multifunctional urban area germany. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management
2014; 22(3):208–18.
36. Maffei L, Di Gabriele M, Masullo M, Aletta F. On the perception of Limited Traffic Zones as urban
noise mitigation action. Noise Mapping 2014; 1(1):622.
37. Aletta F, Kang J. Soundscape approach integrating noise mapping techniques: A case study in Brighton,
UK. Noise Mapping 2015; 2(1):115.
38. La Malva F, Lo Verso VR, Astolfi A. Livingscape: A Multi-sensory Approach to Improve the Quality ofUrban Spaces. Energy Procedia 2015; 78:37–42.
39. Maffei L, Masullo M. Electric Vehicles and Urban Noise Control Policies. Archives of Acoustics 2015;39(3):333–41.
40. Paiva Vianna KM de, Alves Cardoso MR, Rodrigues RMC. Noise pollution and annoyance: An urban
soundscapes study. Noise Health 2015; 17(76):125–33.
41. Aiello LM, Schifanella R, Quercia D, Aletta F. Chatty maps: Constructing sound maps of urban areasfrom social media data. R Soc Open Sci 2016; 3(3).
42. Aspuru I, Garcia I, Bartalucci C, Borchi F, Carfagni M, Governi L et al. LIFE+2010 QUADMAP
Project: A new methodology to select, analyze and manage Quiet Urban Areas defined by the European
Directive 2002/49/EC. Noise Mapping 2016; 3(1).
43. Brambilla G, Gallo V. QUIETE: A scheme for a new index of the environmental quality of green areas.
Noise Mapping 2016; 3(1):887.
45. Lavandier C, Aumond P, Gomez S, Dominguès C. Urban soundscape maps modelled with
geo-referenced data. Noise Mapping 2016; 3(1):128.
46. Schulte-Fortkamp B, Jordan P. When soundscape meets architecture. Noise Mapping 2016; 3(1):133.
47. Cerwén G, Kreutzfeldt J, Wingren C. Soundscape actions: A tool for noise treatment based on threeworkshops in landscape architecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research 2017; 6(4):504–18.
48. Margaritis E, Kang J. Soundscape mapping in environmental noise management and urban planning:
Case studies in two UK cities. Noise Mapping 2017; 4(1):87–103.
49. Radicchi A. Beyond the noise: Open source soundscapes - A mixed methodology to analyse, evaluate
and plan “everyday” quiet areas: Acoustical Society of America; 2017. p. 40005
50. Radicchi A, Henckel D, Memmel M. Citizens as smart, active sensors for a quiet and just city. The caseof the “open source soundscapes” approach to identify, assess and plan “everyday quiet areas” in cities.
Noise Mapping 2017; 2017(4):104–23.
51. Vogiatzis K, Remy N. Soundscape design guidelines through noise mapping methodologies: An
application to medium urban agglomerations. Noise Mapping 2017; 4(1):1–19.
52. Xiao J, Lavia L, Kang J. Towards an agile participatory urban soundscape planning framework. Journalof Environmental Planning and Management 2017; 61(4):677–98.
53. Aletta F, Kang J. Towards an Urban Vibrancy Model: A Soundscape Approach. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 2018; 15(8).
54. Bild E, Pfeffer K, Coler M, Rubin O, Bertolini L. Public Space Users' Soundscape Evaluations in
Relation to Their Activities. An Amsterdam-Based Study. Front Psychol 2018; 9:1593.
55. Offenhuber D, Auinger S, Seitinger S, Muijs R. Los Angeles noise array—Planning and design lessons
from a noise sensing network. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 2018
56. Vogiatzis K, Rémy N. Changing the Urban Sound Environment in Greece: A Guide Based on SelectedCase Studies of Strategic Noise Maps (SNM) and Noise Action Plans (NAP) in Medium and Large
Urban Areas. Environments 2018; 5(6):64.

7042