PROCEEDINGS of the23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Soundscape approaches in urban planning: implications for anintervention framework
Irene Van Kamp1 Alan Lex Brown2 Dirk Schreckenberg312

National Institute for Public Health, Netherlands

Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Australia
3

ZEUS GmbH, Germany

Irene.van.kamp@rivm.nl, lex.brown@griffith.edu.au, schreckenberg@zeusgmbh.deABSTRACT
There is increasing demand for innovative approaches to decrease the negative impact of noise bysound-conscious design. While the health effects of environmental noise are well mapped, little is
known about the effectivity of interventions on health. This is one of the conclusions in theWHO-Review on health impacts of noise interventions. More and better interventions studies areneeded, in particular for sources other than road traffic, and for health outcomes other than annoyance.
Some soundscape intervention studies were included in the WHO review, classified under thecategory ”Other physical interventions”. Three out of four studies in this domain demonstrated
potential efficacy. Although consideration of soundscapes seems essential for urban planning,
guidelines on how to implement and assess improvements are not available. Against this backgroundan inventory of architectural soundscape projects in the Netherlands and elsewhere was made,combining interviews with experts and planners with a literature review. The inventory of Dutch andinternational examples of soundscape approaches in urban planning led to the conclusion thatwell-documented approaches all aimed at the improvement of the acoustic quality, rather than a mere
reduction of sound levels. The projects also combined changes in the physical environment withstakeholder involvement and in that way created a sense of ownership of the interventions. Based onthese findings this paper extends the examples of the typology of interventions.
Keywords: Sound, Soundscape, Interventions, Social Interventions

1. INTRODUCTION
In a review prepared in the framework of the WHO Guidelines for environmental noise1
we discerned five types of interventions: A Source interventions B Path interventions C New/closed
infrastructure D Other physical interventions and E Education/ communication interventions. Figure 1
presents the different types of interventions.

Figure 1: Five types of noise intervention along the pathways between environmental noise and health.

The studies included in assessing the effectiveness of type D interventions provided, by comparing405

responses from groups with and without the particular physical dimension of interest, indirect
evidence on the magnitude of the likely effect of the physical interventions1. The physical dimensions
considered in this group of studies included: availability of a quiet side; whether bedroom or livingroom windows faced a quiet street (effectively a variation on the existence of a quiet side to thedwelling); the non-acoustic ‘quality’ of the space that constituted the quiet side of the dwelling (suchas a courtyard); and the existence of nearby green areas. This type of intervention could be achieved,for example, as part of comprehensive housing/roadway redesign activities over some area. All studies
found the presence of the particular dimension being investigated had a favorable effect on the(annoyance) responses of the study group, and all but one study demonstrated that this was statisticallysignificant. For example, the difference in the percentage of at least moderately annoyed participants
between homes with and without a quiet side was statistically significant. Several of the studies
adjusted for a large number of confounders in their analyses, but others only for age, noise sensitivity,
or window-closing behavior.

2. INVENTORY OF EXAMPLES OF ARCHITECTURAL INTERVENTIONS
A recent inventory of projects2 aimed at improving the soundscape in urban areas in theNetherlands focused on type D interventions: changes in the physical environment. To be included inthe overview the intervention projects had to meet the following criteria:• the reduction of sound levels to below a (statutory) limit was not a primary aim of the project;• the project is in the public domain;• some physical modification has been made;• improvement of acoustic quality must be an explicit aim of the project and identified
beforehand.
Only four Dutch soundscape projects were identified which met the criteria and these included only
two projects which had been implemented. In addition, three international projects were added to thelist. For a full description of the projects see 2,3.
2.1 Key features of interventions in the inventory
This inventory2 of Dutch and international examples of soundscape approaches in urban planningcame up with several interesting approaches. The approaches all had in common that a reduction ofsound levels was not the main aim, but the improvement of the acoustic quality was. The projects also
had in common that they involved stakeholders and that a sense of ownership or control was created by
the interventions, although this was not necessarily an explicit aim of the intervention. Ownership had(in these examples) many different faces, varying from participating in the decision-making regarding
the design, creating solutions with a strong (visual) link with the history of the area, giving people
actually temporary ownership of the soundscape of a park and so on. We note that, in discussion of
annoyance reducing measures around airports, wind turbine parks etc. the concepts of participation,
personal control and ownership, have also often been mentioned.
In a recent review paper of Asensio et al.4 a wheel of participation was described of which thesegment in Figure 2 below is closely related to the approaches in projects reported in the inventory.
This approach also is a vital part of the Horizon2020 project ANIMA5.

406

Figure 2: Segment of the wheel of participation6
The segment clearly shows that there are different levels of participation and ownership: ‘real’ownership (of the airport/noise source, of measures/devices that reduce exposure, i.e. sound proof
windows, house with good sound insulation, quiet façade, etc.) and 'symbolic' ownership which mightalso be understood as 'real' ownership of decisions or of the power to decide (and thus ownership ofcontrol). or ownership in the sense as described above: the solutions in itself create a sense ofbelonging/ownership. The pathway by which these types of intervention can lead to a reduction inannoyance is well summarized by the concept of personal control
Control beliefs (“perceived presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of abehavior” become manifest in residents’ perceived behavioral control. Ajzen 7,8 distinguishes
perceived behavioral controllability (“belief about the extent to which performing behavior is up to theactor”) and self-efficacy (“ease or difficulty of performing a behavior”). The more a resident assumes
to know about objective environmental quality and environmental rights, the greater her or hisengagement-specific controllability6. Equally, the more she or he feels confident and capable of civicengagement, the more self-efficacy regarding civic engagement is present. The stronger
engagement-specific controllability and self-efficacy are, the higher the chance that a resident will
adopt an institutional (read active) coping strategy.
Although the role of personal control in the relationship between environmental exposures andacute stress responses and long-term health effects has been well documented in the past 9, we do notknow much yet about the health effects of soundscape types of interventions including participativeelements. Also, there is a limit to how much one can intervene in chronic high levels of noise exposure:creating a sense of ownership or literal ownership might have stress- and annoyance- reducing effect atlower levels, they do not prevent long term health effects of exposures to noise levels above thehealth-related limit values. In other words: these interventions are not meant, and cannot be used, as away for paying off the acceptance of unhealthy living conditions.

3. The noise intervention Framework
The original framework 1 for considering noise interventions and related health effects is presented
in Figure 3. It shows where different categories of interventions fit along the system pathway between
noise sources and human outcomes. It also shows different measurement points along the pathway
where changes relevant to human outcomes can be measured. This framework provides a systematicand comprehensive basis for this, and any future work with respect to the effects of interventions inenvironmental noise of all source types.

407ȱFigure 3. Intervention framework showing: system components of the path between environmental noiseand human health, where different types of noise intervention potentially act along that path, and points
along the pathway where changes resulting from interventions can be measured.

Table 1 expands on these interventions by adding subcategories and examples
Table 1. Categorization of Noise Interventions.
TypeA

B

Intervention
Category

Source interventions

Path interventions

CNew/closed
infrastructure

D

Other physicalinterventions

E

Education/communication interventions

Intervention Sub-Categorychange in emission levels of sources
time restrictions on source operations
change in the path between source andreceiverpath control through insulation ofreceiver’s dwelling
opening of a new infrastructure noise
source, or closure of an existing one
planning controls between (new)receivers and sourceschange in other physical dimensions ofdwelling/neighborhoodchange in behavior to reduce exposures;
avoidance or duration of exposurecommunity education, communication

Examplesmotor vehicle emission regulation; railgrinding; road surface change; change intraffic flow on existing
roadways/railways; change in number ofaircraft flights
airport curfew, heavy vehicle curfew
noise barrierinsulation of building envelope
new flight path; new railway line; newroad bypass; or closure of any of theseurban planning control; ‘buffer’requirements
availability of a quiet side; appearance ofthe neighborhood; availability of green
space
Educating people on how to change their
exposure
Informing people to influence theirperceptions regarding sources, orexplaining reason for noise changes

3.1 Implications of the findings of the inventory for the intervention framework
We surmise that the examination of urban planning interventions in Section 2 above has several
implications for future work on interventions, and specifically for further comprehensive developmentof the intervention framework as originally proposed1. Two of these are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3below.

408

Firstly, Intervention type D, “Other physical interventions” was defined as changes to physicaldimensions of dwelling/neighborhood, including; availability of a quiet side; appearance of theneighborhood; availability of green space. It is suggested that the examples of applicable interventions
for this category should be extended to explicitly include “varied soundscape design”.
Table 2: Type D Interventions extendedDȱOther physicalchange in other physical dimensions ofinterventionsȱ

dwelling/neighborhood ȱavailability of a quiet side; appearance ofthe neighborhood; availability of greenspace; varied soundscape design.ȱ

Secondly, what was first labeled as “education/communication” interventions (Type E) should be
defined much more broadly, and categorized as “Social Interventions”, They represent a very broad
range of participatory interventions as discussed above, including public involvement in aphysical/soundscape intervention creation, (a sense of) ownership or responsibility for theintervention - as in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Type E interventions, extended
change in behavior toreduce exposures;
avoidance or duration ofexposureȱEcommunity education,communication

Socialinterventionsȱ
participation/stakeholder
involvement enhancing asense of ownership and/or responsibilityȱ

educating people on how
to change their exposure
informing people toinfluence theirperceptions regarding
sources, or explaining
reason for noise changes
proving literalownership, proving
ownership of solutions
such as a collaborativeplan of insulation,owning a quiet façade,etc. – or co-create areas,soundscapes which
create a sense ofownership, giving
control over asoundscapeThirdly, it is suggested that it might be worthwhile studying the effect of a combination ofinterventions together. Examination of the effects of interventions that involve a physical change
should be extended to also include assessment of involvement and ownership of both process andoutcome of the Type D interventions, directed at improvements in the local environment (and thosethat involve Interventions Types A to C as well). These dimensions need to be appropriately
incorporated within the protocol for the study of change which was developed by Brown and vanKamp 10 for intervention studies, as utilized by Brown11 and included in the WHO review oninterventions1. They are likely to be important in comprehensive evaluation of the human healtheffects of noise interventions.

4. CONCLUSIONS
There is wide and increasing demand for innovative approaches to decrease the negative impact ofnoise by sound-conscious design. However, evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions is still
very limited. In order to stimulate the evaluation of noise-related interventions the typology ofinterventions should be as concrete as possible. We propose an extension of the Type E category ofinterventions and name it Social Intervention. Also we suggest to include soundscape planninginterventions as a specific subcategory of Type D interventions. It is also concluded that interventions409

related to changes in the physical environment combined with stakeholder involvement might create asense of ownership and personal control. Via that pathway this might lead to a reduction of annoyanceand other aversive consequences..

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of this work was commissioned to Soundappraisal, by the National Institute for Public Healthand the Environment (RIVM), working in association with the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport(VWS), and the ‘Smart and Healthy Cities’ programme of the Ministry of Infrastructure and WaterManagement (I&W) Netherlands. Contributions of Thomas Derksen, Kerstin van den Bosch(Soundappraisal), and Brenda Vervoorn (NL Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management)
are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1Brown A.L., van Kamp I. WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European region: a systematic
review of transport noise interventions and their impacts on health. International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public Health. 2017 Aug;14(8):873.
2https://www.slimmeengezondestad.nl/Kennisnetwerk/publicaties/default.aspx (available in Dutch aswell as English) (under “Engelstalige publicaties”).
3
Internoise paper # 519 (Soundscape and Restoration: observations from planning case studies, Van
Kamp, Brown, 2019).
4
Asensio, C, Gasco L, de Arcas G. A review of non-acoustic measures to handle community response tonoise around airports. Current Pollution Reports. 2017 Sep 1;3(3):230-44
5COMOTI, MMU & ZEUS. (2019). ANIMA D2.4 - Recommendations on annoyance mitigation andimplications for communication and engagement. Zenodo. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.2616667.
6Davidson S. Spinning the wheel of empowerment, community planning. (1998).
7Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior1.J. Appl. Soc. Pyschol. 2002, 32, 665–683.
8Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 1991
Dec 1;50(2):179-211.
9Zehr, Christopher & Hall, Peter. (2013). Perceived Control. 10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1166.
10Brown, A.L., and van Kamp, I. (2005). Towards a design for studies of response to a change in noise.
Proceedings of InterNoise 05, Institute ofNoise Control Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 2958–2967.
11Brown A.L. Longitudinal annoyance responses to a road traffic noise management strategy that reduced
heavy vehicles at night. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2015 Jan;137(1):165-76.

410