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

A soundscape study in New York. Reflections on the application ofstandardized methods to study everyday quiet areas.
Antonella RADICCHI1
1

Technical University of Berlin, Germany

ABSTRACTIn 2014 and, more recently, in 2018 the ISO norms on soundscape were released with the aim of providing a
conceptual framework and standardized data collection and analysis methods for the international communityof scientists and professionals involved in the study of soundscape. This paper presents a soundscape study
conducted in New York where, following the ISO norms on soundscape, methods are applied to study
everyday quiet areas. Firstly, the paper introduces the research questions of the soundscape study. Secondly,
it outlines the procedure and methods of the study, consisting of desk research, interviews with stakeholders
and on-field data collection through soundwalks and the use of the Hush City app. Thirdly, it discusses
preliminary results, focusing on the outputs of desk research, interviews and the soundwalk conducted forthe 2019 International Noise Awareness Day. In conclusion it reflects on the application of standardized
methods to study everyday quiet areas in densely populated, large cities, such as New York and outlines
future research directions.
Keywords: soundscape, soundwalks, quiet areas, public spaces, Hush City app, New York

1. INTRODUCTION
The “soundscape approach” aims at studying the acoustic environment as it is perceived,
experienced and understood by people in context (1) and how it can be usefully applied to planning
better urban quality of life (2) especially in big, populated cities, where excessive exposure to noise
has been proved to account for negative physical and mental health effects (3).
In 2014 and, more recently, in 2018 the ISO norms on soundscape were released with the aim ofproviding a conceptual framework and standardized data collection and analysis methods for theinternational community of scientists and professionals involved in the study of soundscape (2).
This paper presents a research study conducted in New York where the soundscape approach wasapplied by the author to study existing and potential everyday quiet areas (4). New York City waschosen for the research stay due to historical contingencies. In 2016, by acknowledging the subject ofnoise in three plus decades, the US National Science Foundation awarded $4.6 million to the “Soundsof New York City” (SONYC) project proposed by a team of the New York University scholars toresearch noise in New York City (5). The United States has a rather long history on the issue of noise,
health and noise activism (6): a regulatory history was very active between 1968 and 1981, andimportant documents released at the time (7, 8, 9) are still very relevant since they have not beensuperseded by any more recent studies conducted in the US (10). However, in 1981, based on therationale that noise does not constitute a health hazard, the subject was deliberately sidelined by
defunding the enforcement of the Noise Control Act (9) and closing down the Office of Noise
Abetment and Control in the US Environmental Protection Agency (10, 11), with dramaticconsequences for public health and society (10, 12).
It was therefore evident that, by acknowledging again the importance of noise pollution, the US
National Science Foundation gave a highly significant indication of changing priorities in the USA a signal, which cannot be ignored. Against this background, New York City seemed to be the mostappropriate location for the research stay. On one hand, in 2007 the City enforced the Noise Codeupdated for the first time in 30 years to address “public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare
and the prosperity of the people of the city.” (13). On the other hand, it is home of very innovative1

6106

antonella.radicchi@tu-berlin.de.

projects on noise monitoring - such as SONYC (5) and “Citygram NYC Sound Mapping” (14) and of programs on noise education - such as the “Sound and Noise Module” recently adopted by the
NYC Department of Environmental Protection (15). There is also evidence of a certain interest on theissue of quiet areas: the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation has designated official “quiet zones”
where regulated uses are prescribed. Furthermore, in 2013 the New York Times launched the Finding
the Quiet City project: a public call to New Yorkers to crowdsource quiet pockets in the city, which
resulted in more than 800 entries.
The study was conducted in New York City (USA) between February and May 2019 with the aimof: studying current policies and regulations related to quiet areas; researching state-of-the-art projects
across the fields of urban design, placemaking and acoustics, which can positively impact the sonicquality of urban public spaces; conducting field work to study existing and potential everyday quiet
areas in Manhattan; and disseminating the soundscape concept and methods (1, 16) among scholars,
professionals, activists and the public.
In detail, this paper outlines the research methods and dissemination activities conducted in New
York, such as desk research, interviews with stakeholders and on-field data collection throughsoundwalks and the use of the Hush City app. It discusses preliminary results, focusing on the outputsof desk research, interviews and the soundwalk conducted for the 2019 International Noise AwarenessDay. In conclusion it reflects on the application of standardized methods to study everyday quiet areas
in densely populated, large cities, such as New York and outlines future research directions.

2. RESEARCH METHODS AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIESWithin the context of the four-month research stay in New York, research and dissemination
activities were conducted according to a work plan defined in advance (see Table 1). They included:desk research, interviews with stakeholders, in-situ data collection through soundwalks and fieldwork
activities as well as the organization of a workshop at the New York University and two presentationsat international conferences in the US.
Table 1: Work Plan of the research study in New York (USA)

Desk research was conducted throughout the duration of the research stay to collect informationon the state of the art of policies and projects on noise, quiet areas and sustainable urban design andplanning, with a focus on the city of New York. Documents accessed included: national and NYC
policies on noise, NYC regulations on quiet areas, policies, documents and projects addressing city
planning, urban mobility, sustainability, privately-owned public spaces (POPS) and public spaces andalike. Literature review was also conducted to find relevant publications, including papers and books.
Data collected through desk research were exploited to design the questions for the interviews withstakeholders as well as to define and verify fieldwork activities, following an iterative model.
Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with stakeholders from the academic, public, not-profit
and private sectors. The list of potential interviewees was prepared in advance before the start of theresearch stay and it included leading experts in the field of noise, health, citizen science and urban
planning, activists and representatives of NYC Departments, not-profit organizations, urban designand engineering firms and foundations supporting sustainable urban programs. In the case ofinterviews with public official of the NYC Departments a list of questions was provided prior to theinterviews. The kind of questions varied according to the area of specialism of the interviewees andthey were open-ended. Data collected through the interviews were used to orientate and double-checkfieldwork activities.
From March to May 2019, in-situ data collection was conducted in existing and potential urban
quiet areas mainly in the Manhattan Borough through fieldwork activities conducted by the author
and group soundwalks guided by the author. The list of urban quiet areas included the NYC official

6107

“quiet zones” and potential new quiet areas, which were identified during the course of the study
through desk and fieldwork research and insights given by the interviewees and the participants in thesoundwalks.
Fieldwork activities were mainly conducted by the author in 70+ POPS and public spaces in theborough of Manhattan, from Harlem down to Lower Manhattan, e.g. in Harlem, Morning Heights,
Central Park, Upper West Side, Midtown, Chelsea, West and East Village, NO.LI.TA, Little Italy,
Soho, Bowery and Lower Manhattan. Other public spaces were inspected in Brooklyn. Data werecollected by means of pictures, sonicshots (short videos of up to twenty seconds), observational notes
and sketching, when the site design was relevant to the creation of small islands of quietness. The
POPS and public spaces, which could be considered as potential quiet areas, were also mapped byusing the Hush City app - a mobile app for iOS and Android which allows the crowdsourcing of mixed,
geo-referenced and time-stamped data of quiet areas linked in real time to a web-based, open accessplatform (17, 18). Mixed data collected with Hush City app at the quiet areas include: audio recordings,
sound level measurements, pictures and personal responses, given by replying to the pre-definedquestionnaire embedded in the Hush City app, which is composed of twenty questions addressing themultifaced aspects of the environmental experience (18).
In-situ data collection was conducted also by means of three group soundwalks in the West Village(Soundwalk no. 1 and no. 2) and in Little Italy (Soundwalk no. 3) in Manhattan, New York.
A soundwalk is “a walk in an area with a focus on listening to the acoustic environment” (16): asan educational and research practice, it was firstly experimented in the 1960s by Michael Southworth
and in the 1970s by the members of the World Soundscape Project (19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Since the earlyexamples of soundwalks, scholars and practitioners have explored a huge variety of methods within
the arts and humanities, social sciences, ecology studies and engineering (24, 25, 26, 27). Morerecently, soundwalks as a method of conducting scientific research have been defined by the ISO norm
on soundscape with the aim of unifying its application, thus facilitating comparative studies (16, 28).
The three soundwalks were conducted with the goal of collecting data of existing and potential
quiet areas in Manhattan, and raising awareness on the importance of protecting quiet areas as aneffective measure to reduce exposure to noise pollution and enhance the benefits of accessing andspending time in public spaces and green areas in the midst of noisy Manhattan.
Soundwalks no. 1 and no. 2 were conducted within the context of the activities promoted by the
Acoustical Society of America for the celebration of the International Noise Awareness Day 2019
(INAD2019) (29) and they were supported by the NYU Professor Tae Hong Park and noise expert Dr.
Arline Bronzaft.
Soundwalk no. 1 took place on April 8th 2019 at 1 PM in the Washington Square Park area (WestVillage): it was guided by the author with the NYU Professor Tae Hong Park and noise expert Dr.
Arline Bronzaft and a group of five NYU graduate and PhD students. Participants were guided alonga pre-defined path and they used the Hush City app to evaluate and collect data at the three quiet areas(locations) along the path. At the end of the soundwalk, a group discussion took place and Dr. Bronzaft
reported on the history and evolution of noise policies and activism in the US and NYC.
Soundwalk no. 2 took place on April 24 th 2019 at 1 PM in the Washington Square Park area (WestVillage), within the context of the workshop organized at New York University (NYU) for thecelebration of INAD2019 (see below). The soundwalk was guided by the author and it was open to
the public. It was attended by twenty-three participants, attendees of the NYU workshop and otherpeople interested in the soundwalk, who were guided along a pre-defined path and invited to evaluate
and collect data at the three potential quiet areas (locations) along the path, by using the Hush City
app. At the end of the soundwalk, a group discussion took place and paper forms were distributed
among the participants to collect written open-ended feedback on the soundwalk.
Both the soundwalk no. 1 and no. 2 were conducted along the same pre-defined path, composed ofthree locations, where the group stopped, listened to the environment for several minutes andafterwards collected data by using the Hush City app. The locations were selected so as to make theparticipants evaluate the potential quiet areas and experience diversity in terms of location size andmorphology, activities and acoustic environments. The three potential quiet areas (locations) were:
Washington Square Park (Location 1), Winston Churchill Park (Location 2) and the Sasaki Garden(Location 3) (see Figure 1).

6108

Figure 1: Images showing the 3 locations of the soundwalks no. 1 and 2. From left to right Washington
Square Park (Hush City #2187), Winston Churchill Park (Hush City #2199), and the Sasaki Garden (HushCity #2210).
Soundwalk no. 3 took place on May 16th 2019 at 5 PM in Little Italy, within the context of the
Elizabeth Street Community Garden program. The soundwalk was guided by the author and it was
open to the public. It was attended by seven participants, who were guided along a pre-defined pathand invited to evaluate and collect data at the three potential quiet areas (locations) along the path, byusing the Hush City app. At the end of the soundwalk, a group discussion took place and paper forms
were distributed among the participants to collect written open-ended feedback on the soundwalk.
The locations were selected so as to make the participants evaluate the potential quiet areas andexperience diversity in terms of location size and morphology, activities and acoustic environments.
The three potential quiet areas (locations) were: the Basilica of San Patrick’s Old Cathedral (Location1), M’Finda Kalunga Garden (Location 2) and Elizabeth Street Community Garden (Location 3).
In April and May 2019, dissemination activities were also conducted, including a workshop andtwo presentations given at international conferences in the US.
On April 24th 2019, the workshop, titled “Noise, Quietness, and the Healthy City” (30) was held at
the New York University for the celebration of the International Noise Awareness Day (INAD), which
was founded in 1996 in New York City by the Center for Hearing and Communication (CHC) withthe aim of raising awareness about noise effects on hearing, physical and mental health, and overall
well-being of people worldwide.
The workshop was organized by the author, NYU Professor Park and Dr. Bronzaft, with the supportof (in alphabetical order): the Acoustical Society of America, Center for Hearing and Communication,
GrowNYC, HEAD-Genuit Foundation, New York City Department of the Environmental Protection,
New York University, NoiseGate, Technical University of Berlin, The Quiet Coalition and the Trustfor Public Land. The workshop was aimed at raising awareness on the importance of reducing noise
pollution in parallel to protecting quiet areas, as recommended by (3), by engaging the NYC
community with expert talks and soundwalks that could provide answers to important questions aboutcity noise and quiet areas. The workshop was open to the public and it involved a full day ofcommunity engagement through talks and discussions as well as an outdoor soundscape exploration
session (i.e. the soundwalk no. 2) around the Washington Square Park area. Participants in thesoundwalk were guided by the author to listen to West Village soundscapes with a focus on quiet areas
along a predetermined pathway. Participants were also invited to use the free Hush City app tomeasure, capture, map, and evaluate precious quiet areas (18). The soundwalk was followed by agroup discussion on data collected from the soundwalk and access to the CHC Mobile Unit offering
hearing screenings and sound demos. Invited speakers at the morning session included (in alphabeticalorder): Adrian Benepe, Senior Vice-President and Director of National Programs, The Trust for Public
Land; Arline Bronzaft, Ph.D., Board member, GrowNYC; Nancy Nadler, MED, MA, Deputy
Executive Director, Center for Hearing and Communication; Tae Hong Park, Ph.D., Professor at New
York University; Antonella Radicchi, Ph.D., TU Berlin Researcher and HEAD-Genuit Foundation
Fellow; Charles Shamoon, Esq., New York City Department of the Environmental Protection (DEP).
In parallel, in May 2019, two presentations were given by the author at two conferences in the US:
the 177th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in Louisville, Kentucky, and at the 50 thEnvironmental Design Research Association Conference in Brooklyn, New York.

6109

3. PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Desk research was conducted for the entire duration of the study in parallel to twenty-seveninterviews with stakeholders from the academic, public, not-profit and private sectors. in the field ofurban design, public spaces and acoustics.
With regard to NYC quiet areas, it emerged that they can be designated by the NYC Departmentof Parks and Recreation’s Commissioner as “quiet zones”: areas where “regular and customary use ofsound reproduction devices shall be prohibited” and “signs shall be posted in all quiet zones advising
the public of such prohibition” (NYC Department of Parks Rules and Regulations). In terms ofidentification criteria, the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation’s Commissioner may designatequiet zones in the parks as the Commissioner deems necessary. This determination is made at theCommissioner’s discretion, considering a number of factors including: community input, volume ofnoise complaints, parks features and intended use of the park space. As of May 2019, there are six
officially designated quiet zones at Central Park, including: Sheep Meadow, Strawberry Fields,
Conservatory Garden, Shakespeare Garden, East Green and Turtle Pond. The historic list of “Quiet
Zones on Parkland” provided by the Commissioner during the interview also included six quiet zones
in Manhattan (where no signs are posted, based on the survey made by the author), one quiet zone in
the Bronx, two quiet zones in Brooklyn, six quiet zones in the Queens and three quiet zones at Staten
Island. However, as reported during the interview, many previous quiet zones are no longer designatedas such and the reason remained unclear. Parks Enforcement Patrols are empowered to enforce allposted rules in the parks including the Quiet Zones, although the monitoring of the Quiet Zones ispredominantly complaint-driven.
From desk research and interviews conducted, a number of projects and policies were identified as
relevant for the creation of quiet areas and healthy public spaces, the reduction of noise pollution andthe raising of civic awareness, such as: the NYC DEP’s Sound and Noise Module for school children,from the lower grades through high school, that would teach them about the beauty of good sounds
and the dangers of loud sounds and noise (15); the NYC Plaza Program which aims to ensure that all
New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of quality open space; the NYC People Priority Zones
Program which will create car-free zones via a pilot project in Lower Manhattan; the NYC Parks
without Borders Program which is aimed at making the parks more inclusive and open to the public
by redesigning their borders and proximity areas; the NYC Congestion Pricing Plan which will impose
fees on vehicles that enter Manhattan below 60th Street and use the fees to fix the city’s subway
system and thin out streets that have become strangled by traffic; the SONYC project (5) which has
been monitoring noise and its impact on people, by means of a sensors-based network and a citizen
science mobile app (which will be launched by the end of 2019); the implementation of Mack LR allelectric garbage trucks, planned to be tested on the streets of New York City in 2020; the NOISY
project, an AI Powered Automated Airplane Noise Reporting System that can automatically send noise
complaints to participating local airports and, even more importantly, save evidential data for futureuse (32).
In-situ inspection and data collection of existing and potential quiet areas was made in March,
April and May 2019 via fieldwork activities and three soundwalks.
Fieldwork activities were conducted by the author in 70+ POPS and public spaces in the boroughof Manhattan, from Harlem down to Lower Manhattan. The POPS and public spaces, which could beconsidered as potential quiet areas, were also mapped by using the Hush City app, and they will be
used to create a report of everyday quiet areas in Manhattan (in progress).
In parallel, three soundwalks were conducted between April and May 2019 in Manhattan withoverall 30+ participants. In detail, soundwalk no. 2 held on April 24th 2019 for INAD2019 wasattended by twenty-three participants, including a hearing-impaired person. Participants were given
the possibility to map and evaluate the potential quiet areas along the path by using the Hush City app(18). In terms of user behavior, preliminary results show that out of the twenty-three participants,
fifteen used the Hush City app during the soundwalk collecting overall thirty-one datasets. In detail,twelve participants used the app at the Location no. 1, nine participants at the Location no. 2 and ten
participants at the Location no. 3. Users #4038, #4039, #4042, #4071 and #4072 used the app at all
the three locations (see Table 2). One participant (user #4072) collected three additional datasets after
the end of the soundwalk, presumably on their way back home.
Due to the limited amount of data, a qualitative approach was applied to evaluate the perceptionof the potential quiet areas by the participants who used the Hush City app’s questionnaire to evaluate
the three locations. Table 2 shows the participants’ replies to question no. 3 and no. 4 of the survey

6110

embedded in the Hush City app. Location no. 1 was perceived “lively” by the majority of the Hush
City app’s users and it was rated as “not quiet” and “slightly quiet”. Location no. 2 was rated as “fairly
quiet” and positively perceived by the app’s users: the majority of the semantic descriptors chosenwere indeed positive, i.e. “relaxing”, “familiar”, “pleasant”, “lively, “meaningful”, “natural”. Only
one app’s user perceived the location as “confusing”. Location no. 3 was rated as “quiet” and “veryquiet” by the majority of the Hush City app’s users and very positive semantic descriptors very chosen
accordingly, i.e. “pleasant”, “relaxing”, “beautiful”, “preferred”, “familiar”. However, one user
perceived the location as “boring”.
Table 2: Preliminary results of the data collected by the Hush City app’s users at the three locations during
the soundwalk no. 2 conducted on April 24th 2019 at 1 PM in the West Village, New York.

At the end of the soundwalk, paper blank forms were given to the participants to invite them towrite down their thoughts and comments on the soundwalk. Out of the twenty-three participants inthe soundwalk, sixteen filled the forms in and returned them. A qualitative approach to data synthesis
was applied to evaluate the written feedback provided by the participants at the end of the soundwalk.
Preliminary results show that the participants “really appreciated” the soundwalk and through it they
“discovered new quiet spaces in the city”. For a former resident of the neighborhood the soundwalk
was” a chance [to experience] emotions and memories”. For another participant the soundwalk favored“an understanding of [their] own aural experience”. The selection of the locations was considered“very focused on quiet” and appropriate, “distinguishing the many aspects of sounds within few
blocks”. The app was defined as a tool “that could be used to be part of a social change” and “a good[one] for children too”, and the “use options that the app has” and its “user-friendliness” wereappreciated by the participants in the soundwalk. A participant suggested to “bold/enlarge the text” ofthe app. A “practitioner in the city” found “the app and the approach useful and helpful inunderstanding the importance of subjective environmental acoustic awareness”. Participants who
could not use the app took advantage of the paper forms to provide feedback on their favorite location,
the third one, defined as “the quietest”. The participation of a hearing-impaired person in the6111

soundwalk raised methodological issues among the participants. For example, a participant reported
questions related to “what we could learn from the individuals with hearing loss” and whether “wecould structure a perceptive walk for those who don’t experience the sonic environment in the same
way as those with hearing abilities”. The hearing-impaired person reported that they “focused on thebirds, birds and water going up and down. [They] enjoyed seeing New York newly and […] loved theblowing trees, birds and another symbols (signs) of nature. […] [They] applaud what [the soundwalk’s
leader, i.e. the author] is doing”, suggesting to “write a book […]. Sound it out. Found that sound!”.

4. CONCLUSIONSThis paper presented a research study conducted by the author in New York between February and
May 2019 where the soundscape approach (1, 6) was applied to study existing and potential everyday
quiet areas (4), by means of: desk research, interviews with stakeholders and on-field data collection
through soundwalks and the use of the Hush City app (18). Preliminary results were discussed,
focusing on the outputs of desk research, interviews and the soundwalk guided for the 2019
International Noise Awareness Day. From the latter, the validity of soundwalks as research anddissemination methods emerged. The use of the Hush City mobile app was also found appropriate by
the participants in the soundwalk as a tool that can facilitate the collection and sharing of mixed dataand “that could be used to be part of a social change”. Challenges regarding the use of the app undernot-controlled conditions were noted, i.e. for the soundwalk no. 2 led with the big group of participants,
where data collection was not consistently performed by each participant at each location along thesoundwalk’s path. However, considering the increasing trends in the use of mobile apps for collecting
mixed data in the field of soundscape, citizen science and urban design and the extent to which thesetools can facilitate public participation (31), it is recommendable that the design, building andimplementation of mobile apps are standardized by ISO norms on soundscape research. The
participation of a hearing-impaired person in the soundwalk raised methodological issues, opening up
potential new research paths addressing “perceptive walk” as a standardized method for those whoare hearing- and visually-impaired. Further research addressing this gap of knowledge is advisable,
especially within the context of ISO norms. These advancements could contribute to the definitionand development of methods and tools to plan healthier, quieter and more inclusive cities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research study in New York was part of the “Hush City Mobile Lab” project (2018-2020)
conducted by the author as the principal investigator and supported by the HEAD-Genuit Foundation(grant number: P-17/08-W). The support of the Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. During the
research stay the author was visiting HEAD-Genuit Foundation Senior Fellow at the New York
University Department of Music, Music Technology Program, hosted by NYU Prof. Tae Hong Park.
The author is truly grateful to Dr. Arline Bronzaft and NYU Prof. Park for their precious mentorshipas well as to the public officials, scholars, professionals, activists and soundwalkers for their generous
participation in the research and dissemination activities, despite their busy agendas. The support of
the Center of Hearing and Communication and the Acoustical Society of America for the soundwalks
conducted for the celebration of the International Noise Awareness Day 2019 is also gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. International Organization for standardization ISO 12913-1:2014 Acoustics—Soundscape—Part 1: Definition and conceptual framework.
2. Schulte-Fortkamp B. Soundscape and its contribution to health in the city. Cities and Health2019. DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2019.1585692.
3. World Health Organization. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region.
2018. Available online: http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/279952.
4. Radicchi A. Everyday quiet areas. What they mean and how they can be integrated in city
planning processes. Proc InterNoise18; 26-29 August 2018; Chicago, USA.
5. Bello J et al. SONYC: A System for Monitoring, Analyzing, and Mitigating Urban Noise
Pollution. Proc Communications of the ACM; February 2019; Vol. 62 No. 2. p. 68-77.
6. Thompson E. The Soundscape of Modernity. Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of
Listening in America, 1900–1933. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 2002.

6112

7. Ward D, Fricke J. Noise as a Public Health Hazard. Proc ASHA Report 4; 1969.
8. US Congress. Noise Control Act. Washington D.C.; 1972.
9. Bronzaft A. Impact of Noise on Health: The Divide between Policy and Science. Open
Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2017): 108-120.
10. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/history/epa-history-noise-and-noise-control-act
11. Casey J et al. Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, Residential Segregation, and Spatial
Variation in Noise Exposure in the Contiguous United States. Environ Health Perspectv.125, 7(2017). DOI:10.1289/EHP898
12. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Information on levels of environmental
noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1974.
13. NYC Noise Code. Available online: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/environment/noisecode.page.
14. Park T H et al. Citygram One: One Year Later …. Proc ICMC|SMC|2014 Athens, Greece;
14-20 September 2014.
15. Bronzaft A. Supporting healthier urban environments with a sound and noise curriculum forstudents. Cities and Health 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1585691.
16. International Organization for Standardization ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 Acoustics—
Soundscape—Part 2: Data collection and reporting requirements 2018.
17. Hush City Map. Available online: https://map.opensourcesoundscapes.org/view-area.
18. Radicchi A. The HUSH CITY app. A new mobile application to crowdsource and assess“everyday quiet areas” in cities. Proc Invisible Places. Sound, Urbanism and the Sense ofPlace. São Miguel Island, Azores (P); 7-9 April 2017. p. 511-528,
19. Southworth M. The Sonic Environment of Cities. Master Thesis in City Planning; MIT:
Cambridge (USA); 1967.
20. Westerkamp H. Soundwalking. Sound Heritage, v.3, 4(1974). p.18-27.
21. Schafer R M. The Soundscape. Our Sonic Environment and The Tuning of the World. A.
Knopf: New York; 1977.
22. Radicchi A. Sull’immagine sonora della città. Mappatura e progetto di paesaggi sonori nellacittà contemporanea. Firenze University Press: Firenze; 2012.
23. Radicchi A. The notion of soundscape in the realm of sensuous urbanism. A historicalperspective. In Wilson A (ed) Sound Worlds from the Body to the City. Listen! Cambridge
Scholars Publisher: Cambridge; 2019.
24. McCartney A. Soundwalking: creating moving environmental sound narratives. In Gopinath
S, Stanyek J (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Music Studies, Volume 2, Oxford
University Press: Oxford, New York; 2014. p. 212-237.
25. Radicchi A. A Pocket Guide to Soundwalking. Some introductory notes on its origin,established methods and four experimental variations. In Besecke A et al Perspectives on
urban economics, Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin: Berlin; 2017. p. 70-73.
26. Schulte-Fortkamp B and Jordan P. When soundscape meets architecture. Noise Mapping,v.3, 1(2016). p. 216-231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2016-0015
27. Fiebig A et al. Education in Soundscape - A seminar with young scientists in the COST
Short Term Scientific Mission „Soundscape - Measurement, Analysis, Evaluation. Proc ICA
2010; Sydney, Australia; 23-27 August 2010.
28. Fiebig A. Recent developments in the standardization of soundscape. Proc InterNoise18;
Chicago (USA); 26-29 August 2018.
29. Website of the Acoustical Society of America’s activities for the celebration of theInternational Noise Awareness Day. Available online: https://exploresound.org/internationalnoise-awareness-day-2019/.
30. Press release, program and schedule of the NYU Workshop for the celebration of theInternational Nosie Awareness Day 2019. Available online:
https://wp.nyu.edu/inad/worskhop2019/.
31. Radicchi A. The use of mobile applications in soundscape research: open questions instandardization. Proc EURONOISE18; Crete, Greece; 27-31 May 2018.
32. The NOISY project. Available online: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/noisy/noisy-aipowered-automated-airplane-noise-reportin.

6113