Sound infuence on landscape values

Sound in¯uence on landscape values

JoseÂ Luis Carlesa,*, Isabel LoÂpez Barrioa, JoseÂ Vicente de Luciob

aInstituto de AcuÂstica (CSIC) C/ Serrano, 144. 28006, Madrid, SpainbDepartamento de EcologõÂa, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain

Received 6 November 1997; received in revised form 27 July 1998; accepted 13 October 1998

Abstract

In order to study the in¯uence of the interaction between visual and acoustic stimuli on perception of the environment, 36

sound and image combinations were presented to 75 subjects. The sounds and images used were of natural and semi-natural

settings and urban green space. Affective response was measured in terms of pleasure. The results show a rank of preferences

running from natural to man-made sounds, with the nuance of a potential alert or alarm-raising component of the sound. The

potential for alert or alarm-raising may be related, over and above the information content or meaning, to the characteristics of

the sound frequency spectrum, speci®cally to the existence of frequency bands whose sound levels impose themselves on the

acoustic background. The congruence or coherence between sound and image in¯uences preferences. Coherent combinations

are rated higher than the mean of the component stimuli. Results suggest that there is a need to identify places or settings

where the conservation of the sound environment is essential, because of its salient informational content or due to the drastic

impact of the loss of sound quality on observer appreciation, for example, in urban green spaces, natural spaces and cultural

landscapes. # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soundscape; Perception; Acoustic; Ecology

1. Introduction

The perceptual interaction between image and

sound has been amply dealt with in laboratory studies

(Stein and Meredith, 1993; Meredith et al., 1987). In

an experiment carried out in an anechoic chamber in

which stimuli were electronically generated, Parlitz

and Colonius (1993) con®rmed the signi®cant in¯u-

ence of visual parameters in the appraisal and percep-

tion of sound. They concluded that different sen-

sory stimuli, auditory and visual, converge in `multi-

sensorial' neurones which govern functions like

spatial ability and orientation.

Environmental studies usually deal with sound in its

noise or pollutant facet, and rarely as an informative or

orientational element. The information function of a

landscape, however, is not circumscribed to this

aggressive aspect. A landscape totally devoid of sound

would certainly prove disturbing or unnerving.

A number of studies in recent years have coincided

in stressing the key role of soundscapes (Schafer,

1976) in environmental evaluation. Several authors

have attempted to identify the informational, aesthetic

or affective qualities of sound which help to confer

quality on a given landscape.

Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 191±200

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +349-34-1-5618806; fax: +349-34-

1-4117651; e-mail: [email protected]

0169-2046/99/$19.00 # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

P I I S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 1 2 - 1

Some isolated approaches to this matter have also

been made from the ®elds of geography and environ-

mental psychology. Southworth (1969), for instance,

in a pioneering study which charted the reactions of

different population groups during a tour round Bos-

ton, showed that people's evaluation of a city's sound

environment depends on three aspects: the informa-

tion contained in the sound, the context in which it is

perceived and its level.

Anderson et al. (1983) found that any appraisal of a

given place depended largely on the sounds heard

there. The authors used a variety of procedures such as

in situ evaluation, questionnaires setting out verbal

descriptions of sounds, and slides accompanied by

recorded sounds. Herrington et al. (1993) studied the

validity of different media for representing landscapes

with signi®cant dynamic elements.

More recently Viollon and Lavandier (1997) stu-

died the in¯uence of visual on auditory components in

urban landscapes. Their ®ndings were that visual

conditions modify the auditory perception of subjects

to a signi®cant degree.

Generally speaking the results of these studies

indicate that both the emotional meaning attributed

to a sound and the importance of the context in which

it occurs determine the degree of liking felt for a

particular landscape.

In a research project involving 127 school pupils

aged 11 and 12, asked to rate combinations of four

sounds and eight landscape photographs (Carles et al.,

1992) it was found that `̀ a general factor of congru-

ence may be evoked to explain most of the observed

interactions.'' Appraisal of a sound depended largely

on the extent to which it matched with the setting in

which it occurred (e.g. natural sounds in a natural

setting). When sounds are not appropriate to the

context in which they are perceived and do not provide

readable information on the same (traf®c circulation in

a natural landscape) they are perceived as `noise' and

negatively rated. Apparently sounds provide a speci®c

kind of information over and above the visual which

helps enhance and emphasise the different compo-

nents of the environment.

In a ®eld study carried out in three Spanish

cities (LoÂpez Barrio and Carles, 1995), it was shown

that the acoustic identity of different urban environ-

ments in¯uenced subjects' evaluation of these

places.

The aim of this study is to analyse the sound±image

coherence in greater depth, identifying the speci®c

contribution of each stimulus to the total landscape

value. In short, our aim is to show how the acoustic

impact on landscapes and, in particular, on those most

highly regarded by the population, can signify a loss of

environmental quality which until now has been

barely considered. This study, speci®cally, starts from

the hypothesis that the suspicion of activities deleter-

ious to the landscape awoken by the presence of

unexpected sounds gives rise to high levels of rejec-

tion among subjects.

2. Methods

Sound ratings can be carried out either in situ or in

the laboratory. As regards the ®rst category, we would

cite the approach to soundscapes developed in the

1970s (Schafer, 1976), which seeks to centre acoustic

analysis strategies on honing the listening skills of the

hearer through techniques like the soundwalk which

are also clearly educational. Laboratory procedures, in

the meantime, generally make use of pre-recorded

sounds or methods using verbal descriptions of

sounds. Some studies extend their scope beyond sound

to visual characteristics, essentially through the use of

slides. In general, projects on environmental prefer-

ences and attitudes confront the dif®culties which

human beings face in expressing feelings, emotions

or ideas. This dif®culty is exacerbated in the case of

sound, as environmental analysis has tended to deal

with sound environments in relation to noise, making

it harder to talk about sounds in terms which avoid this

negative connotation (Amphoux, 1991; LoÂpez Barrio

and Carles, 1997). In our case, we start from the idea

that the method to be used in a project like the present

one must not only suf®ciently effective to overcome

the above-mentioned dif®culties in expressing or

representing sound, but must also prove simple and

comfortable for survey participants. This can be

achieved through the use of direct stimuli, in our case

slides and recorded sounds.

To conclude, we hope that the procedures used in

our study will facilitate, as far as is possible, automatic

responses and an objective and precise evaluation of

one particular aspect of the environment, that of sound

preferences. An aspect on which there exist few

192 J.L. Carles et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 191±200

analysis procedures and little theoretical knowledge

suf®ciently tried and tested, above all if we compare

with the wide body of knowledge existing about visual

preferences.

2.1. Stimuli

Six images and six sounds were selected covering

natural and semi-natural scenes and urban green

spaces (parks) on a parallel variability scale of similar

environmental situations (Table 1). Sounds ranged

from the purely natural, without human presence, to

those containing voices or mechanical sounds caused

by anthropic activity. In choosing the images a balance

was sought between built-up and natural elements.

Exclusively urban images without any natural element

were excluded from the selection. In ®ve cases the

correspondence between sound and image represented

the most likely association in reality.

Natural sounds are normally associated with gentle

variations in volume and tone. Likewise natural land-

scapes are associated with an abundance of vegetation.

In view of this, and in order to provide a wider range of

stimuli, a sixth visual element was included compris-

ing a natural image but with very little greenery,

similar to a steppe, and the sound of a thunderstorm.

The sample thus comprised 36 different sound±image

combinations. The sound fragments chosen combined

a number of elements to make up a simple, easily

recognisable soundscape in which each part was

clearly distinguishable. Each fragment lasted around

30 s.

2.2. Procedure

The visual and sound stimuli were presented ®rst

separately and then in varying combinations (Table 2).

Subjects had to rate, ®rst, each image (Ii), then each

sound (Si) and ®nally, each combination (Ii/Si) in

terms of pleasure on a ®ve-point scale (1 � very

unpleasant; 5 � very pleasant). Application of the test

took around 25 min. Valuations of images, sounds and

combinations were carried out in the same order, in a

single session, by the 75 individuals participating in

the experiment. It was not considered necessary to

randomise the sample on the grounds that both sounds

and images are independently perceived. Also, the fact

that the number of participants (75) was far smaller

than the number of possible combinations (6!) to be

made with visual and acoustic stimuli would make

randomisation more dif®cult.

Images and sounds were presented to groups in an

acoustically conditioned room under good conditions

of visibility. Participants were placed at a distance of

between 4 and 10 m from high ®delity loudspeakers

and efforts were made to ensure that each one was in a

similar stereophonic space. Equipment comprised a

Sony DAT (Digital Audio Tape) player (TDC-D10

PRO) with an ampli®er and high ®delity loudspeakers.

The images were shown on slides projected against a

screen. Responses were written down by each parti-

cipant on a pre-prepared template.

Table 1

Acoustic and visual stimuli selected

Sounds Images

Village Village

Stream with birdsong Stream

Busy park Park with children

Thunderstorm Steppe

Quiet park Empty park

Residential neighbourhood Residential neighbourhood

Table 2

Presentation sequence of the 36 sound±image combinations (top±bottom and left±right)

Sounds Images Combinations

V ± Village v ± village Vv Vw Vc Vs Ve Vr

S ± Stream w ± stream Ww Wc Ws We Wr Wv

B ± Busy park c ± park with children Bc Bs Be Br Bv Bw

T ± Thunderstorm s ± steppe Ts Te Tr Tv Tw Tc

Q ± Quiet park e ± empty park Qe Qr Qv Qw Qc Qs

R ± Residential neighbourhood r ± residential neighbourhood Rr Rv Rw Rc Rs Re

J.L. Carles et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 191±200 193

2.3. Sample

Survey participants were 75 university students (43

women and 32 men) aged between 21 and 30 (average

age � 23). Valuations of both images, sounds and

combinations were carried out in the same order by

all 75 participants.

3. Results

3.1. Evaluation of sounds and landscape images

Firstly, to indicate that the inter-rater reliability

ratio (Carmines theta) applied to combination ratings

was 0.83.

Presented separately, sound and image sets received

a similar average rating (Table 3): sounds: 3.55;

images: 3.65. The scoring range for each group of

stimuli was also very similar. The maximum scores in

both cases corresponded to the sound and image of the

stream: 4.60, sound and 4.48, image. The residential

neighbourhood (open development) received the low-

est rating: 2.25, sound and 2.40, image. Excluding the

image of the steppe and sound of the thunderstorm,

which do not match up, the ranking of preferences was

the same for each set: stream, village, quiet park, busy

park and residential neighbourhood. An overall pre-

ference is evident for natural and rural rather than

urban or man-made scenes. Sounds in which voices

and domestic animals predominate, like the village,

attract a higher rating than urban parks. This kind of

sound environment comes within the general concept

of cultural landscape, a frequent subject of the litera-

ture on landscape conservation (Stanners and Bour-

deau, 1995).

The thunderstorm sound scored slightly higher than

pleasant (4.10), and received the highest rating of all

those sounds including arti®cial components, and the

lowest of all the natural sounds. The steppe image was

rated slightly less than pleasant (3.77), and achieved a

similar score to the empty park and higher than the

images depicting built-up elements.

Subjects were more discriminating in their prefer-

ences when asked about sound±image combinations.

The average valuation range was wider, running from

4.68 (image and sound of stream) to 1.77 (image of

stream and sound of busy park). The evaluation of

Table 3

Mean scores (in bold) and standard deviation obtained by different sound±image combinations

Images Sounds Combination

means/standar

deviations

Separate sound

means/standar

deviationsVillage Stream Busy

park

Thunder-

storm

Quiet

park

Residential

neighbourhood �x �xs s

village �x 43.7 3.89 2.80 3.91 3.52 3.19 3.61 4.14

s 0.67 1.03 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.06 0.71

stream �x 3.37 4.68 1.77 4.03 3.11 1.89 3.14 4.60

s 1.17 0.70 0.85 1.15 1.13 0.86 1.44 0.63

park with childern �x 3.09 2.80 2.88 2.99 2.49 1.92 2.70 2.79

s 0.99 1.03 0.96 1.18 0.83 0.98 1.07 0.76

steppe �x 3.85 4.08 1.79 4.05 3.12 1.84 3.12 4.10

s 0.90 1.02 0.86 1.08 0.87 0.90 1.35 1.00

empty park �x 3.92 4.19 2.23 4.21 3.75 2.19 3.41 3.13

s 0.98 0.86 0.91 1.03 0.84 0.91 1.26 0.98

residential neighbourhood �x 3.27 2.61 2.04 3.11 3.04 2.43 2.75 2.55

s 0.99 0.87 0.81 1.07 0.76 0.79 0.98 0.76

Combination

means/standar deviations

�x 3.65 3.71 2.25 3.72 3.17 2.24 �x � 3.55

s 1.05 1.19 0.99 1.18 0.99 1.01 s � 0.81

Separate image

means/standar deviations

�x 4.11 4.48 3.37 3.77 3.80 2.40 �x � 3.66

s 0.53 0.60 0.95 1.09 0.75 0.80 s � 0.79

Average score and standard deviation of sounds heard in the absence of images and images seen in the absence of sounds.


each visual or auditory stimulus was substantially

modi®ed by the presence of another stimulus, suggest-

ing that the sum of the two gives subjects a greater

basis for judgement.

The differences in the scores of each land and

soundscape are statistically signi®cant, both for

images and sounds taken separately and interacting

(Table 4).

As we can see from Table 3, the mean value of

sound±image combinations is not the same as the

mean score obtained for each stimulus individually.

In general, coherent combinations of sound and image

are more highly rated than the mean of each compo-

nent stimulus (Fig. 1). The congruence or coherence

effect has already been reported in previous experi-

ments (Carles et al., 1992) and may be related to the

coherence variable found in studies on visual land-

scape (BernaÂldez, 1985; Kaplan et al., 1987) and,

more classically, with the coherence concept used

in aesthetic psychology studies (FranceÂs, 1979).

Certain sounds consistently increased the scores of

both urban and rural or natural images. This was the

case in our experiment with the sounds of the stream

and the thunderstorm. Natural sounds, particularly of

water, help create positive feelings towards the land-

scape. The attraction of the presence of water in

landscapes has been interpreted as expressing the

qualities of survival and fertility ascribed to this

element (Schafer, 1976; BernaÂldez et al., 1989).

The most highly rated combination was the sound

and image of a stream, while the lowest score was

accorded the combination of the stream image and the

sound of the busy park. These appraisals would seem

to arise from the speci®c effect of the sound of water

and the importance of sound±image congruence. The

sound of the stream, in the meantime, usually

increased the value assigned to images.

The images of city parks were more appreciated

when subjects did not hear their real sound content,

evidencing how such landscapes lose quality as the

sound environment deteriorates. Many people

would prefer to ®nd more silence in a park, consider-

ing its real function, or, even better, the sounds of

nature.

Table 4

Variance analysis on scores of sound±image combinations

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F-value

Sound 1128.10 5 225.62 250.74a

Image 291.49 5 58.30 64.79a

Interaction 411.71 25 16.47 18.30a

Error 2397.12 2664 0.90

ap < 0.01.

Fig. 1. Sound and image means. (a) Bar chart corresponding to the mean values assigned by subjects to sounds with and without the presence

of images. V ± Village, W ± Stream, B ± Busy park, T ± Thunderstorm, Q ± Quiet park, R ± Residential neighbourhood. (b) Bar chart

corresponding to the mean values assigned by subjects to images with and without the presence of sounds. V ± Village, W ± Stream, C ± Park

with children, S ± Steppe, E ± Empty park, R ± Residential neighbourhood. Fig. 1 sets out the mean scores of each of the stimuli used in this

experiment (both sound and image) ± and, therefore, the variation in ratings ± before and after their combination. We can see from the figure

how those combinations in which sound and image fit perfectly together receive a higher rating than that assigned to component stimuli when

they are rated separately. The most congruent combinations attract higher scores than their individual components.


In order to track the complex mutual in¯uences at

work between sounds and images, we carried out a

correspondence analysis. This procedure allows reg-

ular patterns or trends in subjects' responses to be

picked out. Evaluation styles or trends are represented

through a system of co-ordinates or dimensions which

can be interpreted by the position of the variables or

stimuli used in the survey.

Fig. 2. First and second dimension of the correspondence analysis of the evaluation matrix of sound±image combination stimuli. Evaluation

styles or trends are represented through a system of co-ordinates or dimensions which can be interpreted by the position of the variables or

stimuli used in the survey. We observe (solid line) a differentiated rating for natural, rural and urban environments. Dimension II of the

correspondence analysis shows a gradient in which humanised and natural sounds are located at opposing extremes, configuring a sound-

defined axis. Also shown (broken line) is the different grouping of combinations in which sound and image make up coherent as opposed to

incoherent combinations. The figure confirms the differing distribution of sounds in accordance with their alarm or alert capacity. This

distribution may be related to the physical characteristics of the sound (see Fig. 3).


The distribution in space of the combinations

allows different groupings to be distinguished

with regard to both relative distances (the

proximity or distance of each combination from

others) and their locations versus the axis mid-

points.

The ®rst two dimensions of the correspondence

analysis account for 61.68% of the total variance of

the data matrix. Fig. 2 shows a projection of sound±

image combinations on the plane formed by these two

dimensions.

The ®rst dimension shows a gradient associated

with sound characteristics in terms of their alarm or

alert content. Located at the positive end of axis 1 are

combinations with the storm, busy park and open

residential neighbourhood.

Fig. 3. Tri-dimensional graphs corresponding to the frequency spectrum analysis of the six sounds studied, according to their perception. The

three axes of this analysis correspond to the measurements of frequency (width), measured in barks, time (depth), and amplitude (height),

measured in sons. A bark is each one of the intervals obtained by dividing the audible spectrum (from 45 Hz to 20000 Hz) into 24 frequency

groups. This scale is fairly similar to the division of the octave into thirds.


Spectral analysis of sound in the three dimensions

of frequency, loudness and time denotes, as can be

observed in Fig. 3, the presence of narrow bands

corresponding to the speci®c pitches produced by

voices, dogs, car horns, thunder, etc., which stand

out from the background noise. This frequency ana-

lysis by barks takes into account the auditory ampli-

®cation curves to obtain the frequency distribution of

sounds, exactly as they are after being submitted to the

auditory mechanism, and therefore just as the subject

perceives them (Zwicker and Fastl, 1990).

These sound signals vary in time, with attention-

drawing sounds of an intrusive or penetrating nature

successively appearing and disappearing (Fidel and

Teffeteller, 1981; Bjork, 1986, 1995). In contrast, the

stream, village and peaceful park, although their

frequency components are many, display only mod-

erate variations in loudness in which no single band

predominates over the rest of the spectrum. Alarm or

alert capacity is a very concrete aspect of the informa-

tion content of sound which appears to play a crucial

role in landscape appreciation.

As we can see from Fig. 2, the second dimension

shows the naturalness±arti®ciality gradient of scenes

according to the sounds present. The positive pole

groups combinations with man-made sounds, while

combinations with natural sounds are located at the

negative end. Combinations attracting a low rating

tend to be located at the positive extreme correspond-

ing to arti®cial settings. The combinations of man-

made sounds with whatever kind of image also tend

towards the positive end of the co-ordinate axis.

4. Discussion

4.1. Components of soundscape preferences:

Naturalness and alarm. Both image and sound

interact in perception of the general quality of

landscape

The different analyses carried out in this research

project allow us to verify the importance of the sound

component in determining preference variations. Spe-

ci®cally, the correspondence analysis shows that when

sounds are taken separately, they tend to receive more

consistent ratings than images, whose position in the

system of co-ordinates would be better explained in

relation to the accompanying sound.

The results of correspondence analysis point to two

main functions of sound in the landscape as regards

the providing of information which complements

visual data. One such function is related to the inter-

pretation of the sounds identi®ed (water, birdsong,

voices, cars, etc.), the other is related to the abstract

structure of sound information.

Natural sounds are rated positively, and increase

appreciation of natural and arti®cial settings. Many

natural sounds (especially the sound of water) help to

enhance both the images of natural environments and

of urban spaces by projecting onto them a meaning

other than that derived from the image in isolation. In

this regard, the experiments carried out by Bjork

(1986, 1995), show how the sounds of water and of

birdsong (excepting alarm calls) have greater ability

than human sounds to induce states of relaxation, as

analysed from selected psychophysiological para-

meters (heart rate, skin conductance and electromyo-

graphic responses). The ®ndings on natural

soundscapes are consistent with those relating to the

visual landscape. Likewise, it has been found that

natural landscapes are particularly sensitive to the

presence of man-made sounds.

The results of this study also show how human

sounds (voices, footsteps, conversations, etc.) ®t in

relative to natural sounds (highly rated) and techno-

logical sounds (widely rejected). Apparently this kind

of sound, when it appears as an element of commu-

nication, of social intercourse adds to an appreciation

of humanised spaces (whether in a rural or urban

setting), although in some cases (shouts, noise...) it

may clash with the aspirations attached to speci®c

sites, for example, peace and quiet in an urban park. In

other cases, man-made sounds can denote the exis-

tence of activities which are not present in the image,

and signal a deterioration in the environmental quality

of the landscape.

In our experiment, rural sounds tended to occupy a

halfway point between the most purely urban and

natural sounds. This kind of soundscape could well

represent a part of our acoustic heritage which is being

lost, together with other aspects of traditional cultural

landscapes.

The second facet of the information content of

sound is more closely associated to its physical struc-

ture in terms of ability to produce alarm or alert. This

kind of information may be related to the most


primitive, instinctive aspects of auditory perception

as regards how the information is processed by the

brain. Their function would be the rapid detection

of environmental sound patterns, facilitating, for

example, the recognition of signals of alarm or alert.

Similar perceptual systems, in this case geared to the

recognition of visual patterns, have been detected in

eye movements during the exploration of landscape

images (De Lucio et al., 1996).

A sound's alert-raising capacity is related to abrupt

variations in the sound level of certain frequency

bands. Sound signals produced in a storm or those

present in a busy park or residential area induce states

of alert which are evaluated differently according to

the receiver and the place. Although more uniform

sounds are usually associated with natural settings, in

many cases the opposite is true. Our study, for

instance, included the thunderstorm as a natural sound

but with abrupt variations in loudness and the totally

man-made sounds of a village but with gentle varia-

tions in sound level.

A number of authors have referred to information

content as de®ning artistic preferences (FranceÂs,

1979) and landscape preferences (BernaÂldez, 1985),

differentiating the identi®able and/or concrete con-

tents from other more abstract contents relating to the

structure of the stimulus. In our case, these informa-

tion contents could be associated to the ®rst and

second dimensions, respectively, of the correspon-

dence analysis.

4.2. Sound±image congruence

The relationship between a sound's alert-raising

capacity and the setting in which it appears has an

important impact on its interpretation. An alarm sound

in a setting to which it is alien means something

different from the same sound ascribable to a certain

visual element of the landscape. Our general inter-

pretation would be that ratings can be signi®cantly

affected when the interaction between the sound and

visual elements present is inappropriate. A change in

sound±image compatibility conditions is enough to

produce quite different aesthetic and affective reac-

tions. Visual information and acoustic information, as

such, can reinforce or interfere with each other.

The role of sound±image congruence in shaping

environmental preferences, as found in this and pre-

vious experiments, may be interpreted with reference

to the information content which the sound provides

relative to the image. Sounds indicate components of

the landscape not detectable by the eye, inducing

appreciation or rejection according to the information

content provided, the physical structure of the sound

itself and the degree of concordance between both

stimuli.

This sense of coherence or congruence has been

invoked in classic studies on aesthetic preferences

(FranceÂs, 1979; Arnheim, 1983) to refer to subjects'

ability to unite disparate elements and con®gurations

of a given scene into a coherent whole.

The relating of the information content of images

and sounds on two different planes opens up whole

new horizons in landscape studies. It would be inter-

esting, for example, to analyse the effect of sound-

image congruence on certain variables classically used

for the prediction of landscape preferences, such as

`mystery' as reported by Kaplan et al. (1989): `̀ ...pro-

mise of new but related information.'' This explora-

tory and anticipatory function may well be ful®lled

largely by sound.

As regards this variable, the lower ratings accorded

to combinations in which the natural landscape

appears with sounds alien to its typology could clash

with the traditional view. In classic studies of land-

scape preferences, this promise of new information in

the landscape is a positive and relevant variable as

regards preferences. This ful®lment of a basic need, in

this case the need to explore, may be limited in our

study by an overload or saturation of contradictory

visual and acoustic stimuli (Milgran, 1970; Amphoux,

1991) which may cause a decrease in the scores of

environments where sound is not congruent with the

visual landscape.

4.3. Consequences for planners and managers

Images modify the effects of sounds and also

determine environmental quality. In our experiment,

the scenes in which sounds are most highly rated are

those containing vegetation or abundant water. These

preferences are related to the expectations of quality,

diversity, complexity, etc. which these environments

give rise to. In certain places with a distinct environ-

mental identity, any acoustic disturbance can lead to a

rapid deterioration in quality. Natural sounds, mean-


while, may improve the quality of built-up environ-

ments to a certain extent. However, any incongruence

between sound and image in a landscape quite clearly

diminishes the value assigned it, indicating the need to

conserve singular soundscapes. This question comes

to the fore in places whose use and function implies

the presence of natural sounds. Such cases call for the

application of soundscape conservation measures in

protected natural spaces, cultural landscapes and parks

and green areas. A further in¯uence stems from the

alert-raising capacity of sounds, which appears to

attract different ratings according to the subjects

consulted, and displays a similar behaviour to the

variables studied in landscape preferences, such as

mystery or risk.

Our interest in this study has centred on the evalua-

tion of a limited number of natural or natural-urba-

nised environments. This raises the question as to

whether other kinds of soundscapes, either natural

(re¯ecting different ecosystems from those set out

here) or urban, technological, social, etc. share the

same properties. A fundamental step in this respect

would be to develop research projects aimed at the

analysis and study of soundscape preferences. We

regard it as essential that this method be developed

and contrasted with others, in order to obtain a more

exact idea of its viability. It is also important to enlarge

the sample to other population groups to establish

control over the preference impact of factors like age,

sex, cultural origin, etc.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers

for their suggestions and remarks concerning the

manuscript.

References

Anderson, L.M., Mulligan, B.E., Goodman, L.S., Regan, H.Z.,

1983. Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings.

Environ. Behaviour 15(5), 539±566.

Arnheim, R., 1983. Arte y percepcioÂn visual. Alianza Editorial,

Madrid.

Amphoux, P., 1991. Aux eÂcoutes de la ville. CRESSON. Rapport

n894 Grenoble.

BernaÂldez, F.G., 1985. InvitacioÂn a la ecologõÂa humana. Adapta-

cioÂn afectiva al entorno. Ed. Tecnos, Madrid.

BernaÂldez, F.G., AbelloÂ, R.P., Gallardo, D., 1989. Environmental

challenge and environmental preferences: Age and sex effects.

J. Environ. Manage. 28, 53±70.

Bjork, E.A., 1986. Laboratory annoyance and skin conductance

responses to some natural sounds. J. Sound Vibration 109(2),

339±345.

Bjork, E.A., 1995. Psychophysiological responses to some natural

sounds. Acta Acustica. 3, 83±88.

Carles, J.L., BernaÂldez, F.G., y De Lucio, J.V., 1992. Audio-visual

interactions in soundscape preferences. Landscape Res. 17(2),

52±56.

De Lucio, J.V., Mohamadian, M., Ruiz, J.P., Benayas, J.,

BernaÂldez, F.G., 1996. Visual landscape exploration as revealed

by eye movement tracking. Landscape and Urban Planning 34,

135±142.

Fidel, S., Teffeteller, S., 1981. Scaling the annoyance of intrusive

sounds. J. Sound and Vibration. 78, 291.

FranceÂs, R., 1979. Psychologie de l'art et de l'estheÂtique. PUF,

Paris.

Herrington, S., Daniel, T.C., Brown, T.C., 1993. Is motion more

important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in

environment research. Environ. Psychology 13, 283±291.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Brown, T., 1989. Environmental pre-

ference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. J.

Environ. Behaviour 21(5), 509±530.

Kaplan, R., Herbert, R.J., 1987. Cultural and subcultural compar-

isons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and urban

planning, 14, pp. 161±176.

LoÂpez Barrio, I., Carles, J.L., 1995. Acoustic dimensions of

inhabited areas: Quality criteria. The Soundscape Newsletter

10, 6±8.

LoÂpez Barrio, I. y Carles, J.L., 1997. La calidad sonora de

Valencia. Espacios sonoros representativos. FundacioÂn Ban-

caixa. Valencia.

Meredith, M.A., Nemitz, J.W., Stein, B.E., 1987. Determinants of

multisensory integration in superior colliculus neurons. I.

Temporal factors. J. Neurosci. 10, 3215±3229.

Milgran, S., 1970. The experience of living cities. Science 167,

1461±1468.

Parlitz, D., Colonius, H., 1993. Effects of visual stimulation on

auditory detection. In: Schick, August (Ed.), Contribution to

Psychological Acoustics. Oldenburg.

Stein, B.E., Meredith, M.A., 1993. The Merging of the Senses,

MIT Press.

Schafer, M.R., 1976. The Tuning of the World. McClelland and

Stewart. Toronto.

Stanners, D., Bourdeau, P. (Eds.), 1995. Europe's Environment.

The Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency,

Copenhagen.

Southworth, 1969. The sonic environment of the cities Environ-

ment and behavior I, 49±70.

Viollon, S., Lavandier, C., 1997. EÂ tude de l'influence de la vision

sur l'audition en contexte urbain. In: Actes du 4eÂme CongreÂs

Franc,ais d'Acoustique, vol. 1, pp. 311±314.

Zwicker, E., Fastl, H., 1990. Psychoacoustics. Facts and Models.

Springer, Heidelberg.


Sound infuence on landscape values

Documents

Transcript of Sound infuence on landscape values