Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
acoustics Article Comparing Turkish and European Noise Management and Soundscape Policies: A Proposal of Indoor Soundscape Integration to Architectural Design and Application ˙ ˘ Ugur ˘ Beyza ERÇAKMAK and Papatya Nur DÖKMECI YÖRÜKOGLU * Department of Interior Architecture, School of Architecture, Çankaya University, 06530 Ankara, Turkey; email@example.com * Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org; Tel.: +90-312-2844500-215 Received: 3 October 2019; Accepted: 1 November 2019; Published: 8 November 2019 Abstract: Improving soundscape studies and policies states that the soundscape approach, which also considers noise interventions, should replace noise management. However, a considerable number of soundscape studies have been concerned with the quality of acoustic environments of open and urban public spaces. This study focuses on indoor soundscaping and its possible integration into the architectural design and application process. Therefore, the present and ongoing Turkish and European soundscape and noise management policies were evaluated in detail and compared in order to characterize the gap regarding the state of indoor soundscaping between the literature and the policy development level. Furthermore, we identiﬁed and classiﬁed factors and methods which have an inﬂuence on indoor soundscaping to be integrated into the ﬁnal proposed model. As a result of the detailed evaluation regarding policies and indoor soundscaping principles, ﬁve stages were proposed that can be used in an integrated indoor soundscape model: (1) the establishment of a topic speciﬁc institution or working group on indoor soundscaping; (2) the preparation of a standard that includes deﬁnitions, indoor soundscape factors and methods; (3) the preparation of an indoor soundscape directive; (4) the preparation of indoor soundscape guidelines; and (5) the provision of maintenance and supervision by experts and authorities. Keywords: soundscape application; soundscape policies; noise management policies; indoor soundscape factors; indoor soundscape methods 1. Introduction Noise management applications have generally been used over the years to avoid the negative impact of noise exposure. However, “reducing the sound levels from certain sound sources may not necessarily result in an acoustic environment of high quality” . The development of soundscape studies has brought a dierent perspective to the argument. When the noise management and soundscape approach are compared regarding their respective approaches toward handling acoustic environments, it can be seen that the soundscape approach tries to introduce a method which concentrates on attaining preferable and healthy sound environments with broader dimensions. These broader and dierentiated methods and approaches of soundscaping are discussed and presented in various studies on open and enclosed environments with different functions, and presented as a collected work in the literature [2,3]. Thus, discussions have begun on the necessity of soundscape applications in practice. The ﬁrst attempt was revealed by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) through the establishment of a working group called “perceptual assessment of soundscape quality” Acoustics 2019, 1, 847–865; doi:10.3390/acoustics1040051 www.mdpi.com/journal/acoustics Acoustics 2019, 1 848 (ISO/TC 43/SCI/WG 54) and the publication of two standards on urban soundscape principles  and data collection methods . Although the studies and actions regarding the soundscape approach have focused on the urban scale, indoor soundscape frameworks should also be considered regarding governmental implementations to enhance indoor sound environments and life quality. Therefore, the integration of indoor soundscaping into architectural design and application processes is crucial, and initial research toward this has been conducted and presented . When the existing implemented policies on noise interventions and urban soundscape are evaluated, process emerges for investigating the improvement of indoor soundscaping applications. Therefore, as a ﬁrst step, soundscape and noise management policies in Turkey and Europe were assessed in detail to determine the present condition and identify the needs for the integration of indoor soundscaping. These considered Turkish and European policies are systematically reviewed, compared, and evaluated in detail. Secondly, the indoor soundscape factors were identiﬁed and related items under each factor are presented. These identiﬁed factors are integrated with the architectural design and application process in the proposed model for further investigation on the possibility of their standardization as part of the indoor soundscaping policy development. As the ﬁnal step, the overall proposed indoor soundscaping integration model is presented in detail. The preliminary literature review of this study and the detailed comparison and evaluation of Turkish and European policies were presented in the ICA 2019 conference in Aachen, Germany , and in the 13th Turkish National Acoustical Congress in Diyarbakır, Turkey , respectively. 2. Soundscape Policies Soundscape studies have been developed progressively in recent years as soundscapes have considerable importance for improving life quality by enhancing urban and indoor sound environments. When attempts to address soundscape are evaluated under the scope of governmental/ocial institutions and organizations, it can be seen that European policies are well developed. In fact, institutional documents and actions related to the improvement of soundscape and funded by governments have been observed in the European Union (EU). Although documents and actions in Europe have operated within an urban scale framework, they might be used as guides, providing a starting point for indoor soundscape applications. 2.1. Published Documents on Soundscape As a result of the investigations on soundscape policies in Europe, three publications stand out. The ﬁrst is the ISO 12913-1 standard  that was published by the ISO working group ISO/TC 43/SCI/WG54 in 2014. This standard includes the related deﬁnitions and the factors interacting with and inﬂuencing each other in context. ISO 12913-1 shows that it is possible to standardize the factors of soundscape. The second publication is the ISO 12913-2 standard , which was published in 2018 as the second part of the ISO 12913 series. This standard aims to specify the “requirements and supporting information on data collection and reporting for soundscape studies, investigations and applications”.  However, these two standards were published for urban soundscape principles; therefore, an indoor soundscape standard has not yet been studied within a specialized scope. The third publication is the ISO 12913-3 standard  that is under development. This document is a follow-up standard to the previously published standards on soundscape as Part 1 and Part 2 and focus on the data analysis. Another publication, “Good Practice Guideline on Quiet Areas”, was published by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2014 on open public quite areas, and suggests combining dierent methodologies identiﬁed as “(1) noise mapping by modeling and calculations, (2) actual measurements of sound-pressure levels in situ, (3) evaluation of user/visitor experiences (i.e., the soundscape approach), and (4) expert assessments”  in order to maintain and manage the areas with good environmental Acoustics 2019, 1 849 noise quality . This guideline also states that current noise measurement techniques do not have the ability to measure the acoustic quality of an area, which necessitates new approaches to assess the soundscape framework . 2.2. Soundscape Actions and Projects In addition to the publications on soundscape, other operations include the “Soundscape of European Cities and Landscapes” project as a COST Action progressed between 2009 and 2013, and the Soundscape Indices (SSID) project, started in March 2018 and funded by the European Research Council (ERC) of the European Commission (EC). COST Action had been purposed to provide practical guidance by organizing an international network consisting of 23 COST countries and 10 participants from non-EU countries, including Turkey . The essential aim of the action is “to supply underpinning science of soundscape and improve the soundscape framework to more advanced position from the present condition, through coordinated international and interdisciplinary approach” . COST Action had been aimed to advance soundscape into present policies and practice to enhance and/or preserve sound environments . The other objectives stated in COST Action as the secondary objectives are as follows: 1. Understanding and exchanging by advancing the interdisciplinary exchanges, exchanging know-how on international/interdisciplinary basis, and examining the dierences of cultures. 2. Collecting and documenting through; soundscape data gathering that is reanalyzed in an interdisciplinary approach. 3. Harmonizing, which includes reviewing and harmonizing the current methodology, developing a standard protocol, and laying the foundations for future European/international standards. 4. Creating and designing through the provision of practical guidance and tools for the design of soundscapes and providing guidelines for the preservation of architectural heritage sites. 5. Outreaching and training for the creation of awareness among the general public, stakeholders, and policy makers in addition to the provision of training for early-stage researchers [2,12]. After the ﬁnalization of COST Action, the Soundscape Indices (SSID) project began in 2018. This project states that noise level reduction is not sucient to enhance the quality of life or the consideration of acoustic environments as perceived as being necessary . The objectives of SSID are: 1. To characterize soundscapes by capturing them and establishing a comprehensive database, which will be a cornerstone for any proposed analysis and an invaluable resource for scientists for years to come; 2. To determine key factors and their inﬂuence on soundscape quality based on the database by conducting laboratory psychological evaluations, physical/psychoacoustic factors analysis and, more importantly, to perform research at a physiological/biological level, including the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging; 3. To develop, test, and validate the soundscape indices through analyzing the inﬂuences by various factors using a number of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches; and 4. To demonstrate the applicability of the soundscape indices in practice by establishing frameworks for soundscape prediction, design, and standardization [13,14]. The COST Action on “Soundscape of European Cities and Landscapes” led to the development of the already published standards on soundscape, and clearly shows the beneﬁt of the comprehensively and professionally organized working groups under the EU COST program. However, ever since the COST Action and SSID projects were started in order to develop urban scaled sound environments, they both still do not speciﬁcally include an indoor soundscape approach. Acoustics 2019, 1 850 3. Noise Management Polices and Applications Noise and its adverse health effects are important to consider in related research fields. The soundscape approach is concerned with managing unwanted sounds in order to improve the quality of acoustic environments. Even if noise management applications are stated as insucient to provide the best acoustic quality, the evaluation of present noise management policies is crucial in order to investigate the integration of soundscape principles into the architectural design and application process. 3.1. Noise Regulations in Turkey and Europe When the present noise regulations/directives of the EU and Turkey were evaluated, six regulations on noise management were discovered. Table 1 presents a comparison of regulations in Turkey and the EU in terms of the scope and regulation numbers (ocial journal issue numbers are used for those which do not have regulation numbers, and these are indicated as issue number (IN)). As a result of the initial comparison, it was seen that four of the six Turkish regulations were prepared as directives equivalent to the European directives. These equivalent directives pertain to environmental noise management [15,16], protection of workers from the risks of noise exposure [17,18], noise emissions of outdoor equipment [19,20], and sound levels of motor vehicles [21,22]. Moreover, in Turkey, there is a regulation on the “protection of buildings against noise” ; however, an equivalent directive in the EU does not exist. Furthermore, the EU has a directive on noise-related operating restrictions at airports , which is not published in Turkey as an equivalent directive. The latest regulations/directives that are published in full text are used and cited in this study and are shown in bold. Table 1. Comparison of noise regulations in Turkey and Europe (Data From ). Scope of Regulation Turkey European Union 1. Environmental noise 2002/49/EC  Directive 2002/49/EC  2. Protection of buildings 23616 (IN)  - 18647 (IN)  3. Protection of Workers Directive 2003/10/EC  Reference: 2003/10/EC Directive (EU) 598/2014  4. Airports - Repealed 2002/30/EC 2000/14/AT  Directive 2005/88/EC  5. Outdoor equipment Reference: 2005/88/EC Amended 2000/14/EC Reference: 2000/14/EC Regulation (EU) 540/2014 6. Motor vehicles 70/157/AT  Amended 2007/46/EC  Repealed 70/150/EEC Turkish regulations are all published and prepared by the related ministries. European regulations are published and prepared by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The equivalent regulations have the same content and scope. The regulation on environmental noise in Turkey is one of the regulations that has been prepared as an equivalent regulation to the European directive, and they have the same content and scope. Environmental noise management regulations are prepared for open public areas where people are more exposed to environmental noise. The regulation on protection of building against noise is published in Turkey, but its equivalent directive is not found in Europe. This regulation aims to regulate design, construction, usage, maintenance, and management rules to minimize the adverse eects of noise. To enhance people’s welfare in an enclosure and control noise that arises during construction, management, and usage, several classiﬁcations and rules are indicated, depending on the functional properties of buildings and neighbor relations of the spaces by demonstrating construction materials and components, noise and Acoustics 2019, 1 851 insulation indicators, acoustical performance rates, and usage of installation and service equipment. Moreover, this regulation stipulates the supervision and licensing of management and construction projects and license rules in order to maintain control during building use as well as over the obligations and responsibilities of authorities for maintenance. This regulation is promising, acting as a backbone and starting point for the preparation of a possible future indoor soundscaping regulations or standards, as the rules have been prepared according to the function of each building and the neighboring relations between spaces. Another regulation pertaining to indoor spaces that is also mentioned in the regulation regarding building protection relates to the protection of workers from noise. The origin of this regulation is the EU, and the Turkish equivalent has been prepared with reference to Directive 2003/10/EC . Hence, the content and scope of these regulations [17,18] are identical. These regulations aim to provide the minimum requirements for the protection of workers from the adverse eects of noise exposure, including hearing impairments, outlining exposure limit values as well as reducing and limiting exposure. These regulations also aim to inform workers about personal protection and raise employers’ awareness of their obligations. Another directive that is speciﬁc to the EU and does not have an equivalent in Turkey pertains to airports. This directive was published to determine the rules of noise-related operating restrictions at EU airports and the protection of people from the adverse eects of aircraft noise . Directive 598/2014 includes the rules on aircraft noise management and assessment, noise performance information, exemptions for aircraft operations of an exceptional nature, and delegated acts of operation. The last two regulations pertaining to noise emissions of outdoor equipment and motor vehicles are of EU origin, and were published in Turkey with reference to European directives. Regulations on outdoor equipment (some examples of equipment mentioned in the regulations such as combined high-pressure ﬂushers and suction vehicles, compressors, concrete breakers or mixers, water pump units) aim to provide rules and standards on permitted sound power levels, noise marking and standards, conformity assessment procedures, placement on the market, market surveillance, and noncompliance of equipment . The detailed information on the content and scope of the directives on motor vehicle noise emissions and exhaust systems were not included in this study since the content of these directives is not directly relevant to the subject, with the exception of the noise emission standards. They have, in fact, focused more on the exhaust systems of motor vehicles. All the regulations cited in this study were prepared and published for managing noise by applying sanctions on rules and to integrate the relevant standards to application and maintenance processes. Noise policies and regulatory approaches in Turkey have progressed in line with the EU. 3.2. Noise Guidelines in Turkey and Europe Other governmental documents that should be assessed in addition to regulations are noise guidelines because of their cooperation with the regulations. The essential aim of these noise guidelines is “to provide recommendations for protecting human health from exposure to environmental noise”  and to support the implementation of environmental noise directives . In Europe, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a series of guidelines on environmental noise and the harmful health eects of noise exposure for the European region. The guidelines in Turkey, on the other hand, were prepared by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization under the scope of the twinning project TR/2004/IB/EN/02 “Harmonization and Implementation of the EU Directive Related to Environmental Noise Management”, which is promoted by the EC. Table 2 presents a list of these guidelines with full titles (titles of Turkish guidelines were translated into English) regarding environmental noise both in Turkey and in Europe. Acoustics 2019, 1 852 Table 2. List of noise guidelines in Turkey and Europe. WHO, World Health Organization; EC, European Commission (Data From ). Turkey Europe—WHO and EC 1. Guideline on environmental noise measurement 1. Environmental noise guidelines for the European and evaluation  Region  2. Guideline on noise reduction precautions  2. Guidelines for community noise  3. Noise mapping guideline  3. Night noise guidelines for Europe  4. Methodology for systematic evidence reviews for the who noise guidelines for European region  5. Biological mechanisms related to cardiovascular and metabolic eects by environmental noise  6. Burden of disease from environmental noise  7. Results from the search for available systematic reviews and meta-analyses on environmental noise  8. Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of associated data on noise exposure  9. Good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health eects  Guidelines in Turkey relating to environmental noise measurement and evaluation , noise reduction precautions , and noise mapping  have not been prepared with reference to WHO guidelines, as can be seen in the regulations. However, the Turkish guideline on noise mapping has been prepared with reference to the EC’s noise mapping guidelines  and the Turkish guideline on environmental noise has been prepared with reference to the EEA’s guidelines  under the twinning project. When the European noise guidelines are evaluated, a process of development can be clearly seen. The previous environmental noise guidelines of WHO were the Guidelines for Community Noise , published in 1999, and were more expert-based and included more detailed technical issues on sound measurements and sources. The Night Noise Guideline , published in 2009, is related to night noise exposure, sleep disturbance, and night noise levels. WHO’s subsequent enhanced environmental noise guidelines [26,32–35] were published and included broader health outcomes of noise exposure, management of indoor noise levels, and management of noise policies and regulatory standards . During this development process, WHO revealed the guidelines that focused more on adverse health eects to inform the public and to attract attention to the negative eects of noise exposure. When the European and Turkish guidelines are compared, it can be seen that the Turkish guidelines are more similar to WHO’s previous guidelines and past publications of the EC and EEA. Moreover, they have deﬁciencies in health outcome information. Since providing information to the public and related disciplines on the health eects of noise exposure is crucial to providing awareness of noise hazards, guidelines on the health eects of noise should also be developed in Turkey. 3.3. Turkish and European Standards on Noise Management More than ﬁfty standards in total can be found in the literature. These are published under the name “ISO/TC 43 Acoustics” by the technical committee, and include items such as recommended sound levels, acoustical measurement protocols, evaluation and rating scales that are being used in noise directives and guidelines. The Turkish Standard Institution (TSE) has translated most of these standards into Turkish. These translated Turkish Standards (TS) have been used in the Turkish regulations and guidelines. Regarding the soundscape regulatory attitude, present standards on acoustics make it essential to use standardized sound levels, measurement techniques, and data collection methods. The conspicuous standards used in current directives and guidelines and presented in the Appendix can also be used or mentioned in possible future regulations and/or guidelines on indoor soundscape. The reason for the necessity of noise-related standards in soundscape design is the consideration of noise masking in Acoustics 2019, 1 853 addition to positive sounds . These standards are ISO 1996-1:9982 (TS equivalent: TS 9315 ISO 1996-1)  and ISO 1996-2:1987 (TS equivalent: TS ISO 1996-2) , which are related to environmental noise measurements, evaluations, and sound levels. Additionally, several standards published by the Building Acoustics Technical Committee (ISO/TC43/SC 2) and standards of the Noise Technical Committee (ISO/TC43/SC 1) may also require consideration for an indoor soundscape regulatory approach. Since an indoor space is exposed to environmental noise besides sounds originating from indoors, standards on environmental noise levels, management, and assessment need to be considered. In addition, further detailed study on the content of acoustical standards is required to determine the relationship between these standards and indoor soundscape factors, and to specify how these acoustical standards would contribute to the architectural design and application process of indoor soundscapes. 4. Indoor Soundscaping 4.1. Indoor Soundscape Factors The most apparent characteristic of soundscape approach and by which it diers from noise management is the multifactorial context of the soundscape research ﬁeld, in addition to acoustical measurements. The main focus of the soundscape approach is on user cognition and the factors that inﬂuence user cognition. The multifactorial approach of soundscapes makes it more complicated in application; therefore, the identiﬁcation and standardization of factors is essential. Through the review of several studies on both urban and indoor soundscape factors in the literature [4,12,40–45] and the guidance of ISO 12913-1:2014 , it is possible to identify or propose a model for indoor soundscape factors. As a soundscape heavily depends on the perception of the sound environment, urban soundscape research ﬁeld deals with acoustical measurements and various contextual factors to evaluate user perception. ISO 12913-1:2014 indicates the seven main concepts as “context, sound sources, acoustic environment, auditory sensations, interpretation of auditory sensations, responses and outcomes” in order to deﬁne the process of “understanding” or “perceiving” the acoustic environment. These seven concepts are related and work interactively with one another. Context has an interaction with “person, activity and place in space and time”, and it has an inﬂuence on a soundscape through the concepts of auditory sensation and interpretation of auditory sensations/auditory perception and responses. Moreover, these three concepts are inﬂuenced by dierent factors such as personal and cultural characteristics, expectation, attitudes, past experiences, activities, moods, temporal situations, lighting, and thermal conditions. However, urban soundscape factors alone are not adequate for evaluating an enclosed soundscape and architectural factors should also be considered. Therefore, dierently from soundscape on an urban scale, indoor soundscape factors can be classiﬁed into three main concepts as suggested in Dökmeci and Kang’s model , where the architectural factors are integrated into acoustical and contextual factors. Torresin et al. also stated the factors of indoor soundscape for a study on residential areas . In that study, in addition to acoustical, contextual, and urban-related factors, house-related factors were indicated as “room location”, “building insulation”, and “window opening position” . Another model was suggested in Herranz-Pascual, Aspuru, and García’s study  which deﬁned user, activity, and place interaction to explain “environmental experience”. Based on Herranz-Pascual, Aspuru, and García’s model, it can be said that contextual factors answer questions such as “how people experience and perceive their built and acoustic environment”, “what type of sensations they have”, “how they evaluate them”, and “what behavioral responses are obtained”. When the contextual factors are assessed in more detail, the expectations mostly formed by past experiences  and preferences dier according to the place, activity, and function  stand out compared to the other dimensions. Moreover, expectation has an inﬂuence on behavioral outcomes, but the expected soundscape is not always the same as the preferred soundscape . Acoustics 2019, 1 854 Architectural factors which are speciﬁc to an indoor soundscape framework can be assessed in three subgroups based on the studies in the literature [40,43,45,46]: function, architectural properties, and physical environment. While the architectural properties of a space are important for its remarkable inﬂuence on the formation of sound , the function of a space is important due to its direct relation to the expectation and preference of users. A merged model for indoor soundscape factors, as in Figure 1, is prepared based on the related studies in the literature. The factors of indoor soundscape are assessed in three main concepts as “acoustical variables”, “contextual factors”, and “architectural factors” in the proposed model. Acoustics 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19 Acoustical factors are needed in order to understand the physical properties of sound and the perceptual evaluations of objective outcomes. Secondly, contextual factors can be assessed in four Architectural factors which are specific to an indoor soundscape framework can be assessed in main three s elements ubgroups b as temporal ased on the stud data, psychological ies in the litera conditions, ture [40,43 behavioral ,45,46]: fuattitudes nction, ar to chi soundscape, tectural properti and the es, personal/demographical information of users. Thirdly, the architectural factors, which have direct and physical environment. While the architectural properties of a space are important for its e rem ects arkon able indoor influesoundscape, nce on the form areat divided ion of sound into thr [4ee 3], elements the functias onfunction, of a space ar is chitectural important pr du operties, e to its and physical environment. direct relation to the expectation and preference of users. Figure 1. Merged classification model for indoor soundscape factors [4,7,12,40–46]. Figure 1. Merged classiﬁcation model for indoor soundscape factors [4,7,12,40–46]. 4.1.1. Acoustical Factors A merged model for indoor soundscape factors, as in Figure 1, is prepared based on the related studies in the literature. The factors of indoor soundscape are assessed in three main concepts as Acoustical factors are needed to identify the physical characteristics of sound with objective “acoustical variables”, “contextual factors”, and “architectural factors” in the proposed model. parameters and subjective evaluations of sound regarding audience perception using psychoacoustic Acoustical factors are needed in order to understand the physical properties of sound and the parameters. Objective parameters are used in both soundscape studies and the noise management perceptual evaluations of objective outcomes. Secondly, contextual factors can be assessed in four approach, including governmental and institutional documents (regulations, guidelines and standards). main elements as temporal data, psychological conditions, behavioral attitudes to soundscape, and However, because of perceptual data outcomes, psychoacoustic parameters are commonly used in the personal/demographical information of users. Thirdly, the architectural factors, which have direct soundscape studies. effects on indoor soundscape, are divided into three elements as function, architectural properties, and physical environment. 4.1.1. Acoustical Factors Acoustical factors are needed to identify the physical characteristics of sound with objective parameters and subjective evaluations of sound regarding audience perception using psychoacoustic parameters. Objective parameters are used in both soundscape studies and the noise management approach, including governmental and institutional documents (regulations, guidelines and standards). However, because of perceptual data outcomes, psychoacoustic parameters are commonly used in soundscape studies. Acoustics 2019, 1 855 Acoustics 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19 4.1.2. Contextual Factors 4.1.2. Contextual Factors Contextual factors of soundscape are directly based on an individual’s cognition and the parameters Contextual factors of soundscape are directly based on an individual’s cognition and the that inﬂuence the individual’s cognition. This can be mainly assessed in four categories as temporal, parameters that influence the individual’s cognition. This can be mainly assessed in four categories psychological, behavioral, and demographical characteristics. Temporal parameters rely on the as temporal, psychological, behavioral, and demographical characteristics. Temporal parameters rely relationship between person/audience and time within a space. The three temporal dimensions—time on the relationship between person/audience and time within a space. The three temporal spent, frequency, and time preference—are determinant and distinctive for indoor soundscaping, dimensions—time spent, frequency, and time preference—are determinant and distinctive for indoor and specify the frame of the study. Psychological factors (attention and mood while listening, past soundscaping, and specify the frame of the study. Psychological factors (attention and mood while experiences and expectations) have an inﬂuence on the perception of soundscape and behavioral listening, past experiences and expectations) have an influence on the perception of soundscape and outcomes (reactions and responses of user to acoustic environment and soundscape preference of a behavioral outcomes (reactions and responses of user to acoustic environment and soundscape place). Personal and demographical information have an importance in the soundscape study ﬁeld in preference of a place). Personal and demographical information have an importance in the that soundsc they allow ape study f characterizing ield in that the they al users lo of w char a place actor erithe zing t par he u ticipants sers of a p of a lsoundscape ace or the pastudy rticip.an Di ts of a erent user soundsc proﬁles ape s may tudy. reﬂect Diffedi re nt use erent r pro soundscape files may re per fle ceptions. ct different Personal soundscape and demographical perceptions. Per information sonal and (which demograp can h also ical in beform seen atin ion (wh the model ich canof alHerranz-Pascual so be seen in the met odal. el o [f 44 Herr ]), such anz-P as asage, cual et gender al. [44 , ]cultural ), such and as social age, gend dier er, cu ences, ltur personal al and soci characteristics, al difference health s, pers conditions, onal charact and erist lifestyle, ics, healt have h condit an inﬂuence ions, and on lifestyle, have an influence on soundscape expectations and preferences. Hence, the entities under soundscape expectations and preferences. Hence, the entities under the contextual factors have an the contextual factors have an impact on the soundscape perception of people and they work in an impact on the soundscape perception of people and they work in an interactive manner with each interactive manner with each other (Figure 2). other (Figure 2). Figure 2. Relationship between the entities of contextual factors [12,42,44,47]. Figure 2. Relationship between the entities of contextual factors [12,42,44,47]. The two-way interactions between separate items of the contextual factors shown by dotted The two-way interactions between separate items of the contextual factors shown by dotted arrows and the one-way effect of identified items to others shown by bold arrows are presented in arrows and the one-way eect of identiﬁed items to others shown by bold arrows are presented in detail, as seen in Figure 2. Soundscape expectation is one of the most important items, and has an detail, as seen in Figure 2. Soundscape expectation is one of the most important items, and has an eect effect on behavioral outcomes. However, soundscape preferences may be thought of as being on behavioral outcomes. However, soundscape preferences may be thought of as being separate from separate from other outcomes as the expected soundscape does not always match with the preferred other outcomes as the expected soundscape does not always match with the preferred soundscape soundscape of a place. Since expectations and preferences are the most significant dimensions that of a place. Since expectations and preferences are the most signiﬁcant dimensions that inﬂuence influence soundscape perception, they need to be assessed in more detail. soundscape perception, they need to be assessed in more detail. The soundscape expectation of a place is mostly composed of the past experiences of users. The soundscape expectation of a place is mostly composed of the past experiences of users. Therefore, while people identify the soundscape expectation, they make decisions using their Therefore, while people identify the soundscape expectation, they make decisions using their informational background on similar places they have previously experienced. Bruce and Davies’ informational background on similar places they have previously experienced. Bruce and Davies’ study  indicates that soundscape expectation relies not only on the expectation of sound sources study  indicates that soundscape expectation relies not only on the expectation of sound sources but deals with “expected places”, “expected control”, “expected behavior”, “expected activity”, and but deals with “expected places”, “expected control”, “expected behavior”, “expected activity”, “expected information”. In further detail, expected places refers to the overall place expectations of a and “expected information”. In further detail, expected places refers to the overall place expectations user. “Expected control” relates to the expected rules that are derived from previous experiences in of a user. “Expected control” relates to the expected rules that are derived from previous experiences in similar environments and if a soundscape fails to provide the expected environment, and a similar environments and if a soundscape fails to provide the expected environment, and a participant’s participant’s “ability to control their activity within the soundscape”. Moreover, the question is “ability to control their activity within the soundscape”. Moreover, the question is asked: “Can they asked: “Can they remove themselves or particular sounds from the current soundscape space or have the ability to control their interaction with the space?” . Expected behavior and activity represents Acoustics 2019, 1 856 remove themselves or particular sounds from the current soundscape space or have the ability to control their interaction with the space?” . Expected behavior and activity represents the user ’s expectation from other users’ behavior and activities. Finally, Bruce and Davies explained “expected information” as “a combination of activity and source expectations related to an expectation of obtaining information” and exempliﬁed it as the ability to hear conversations, announcements, or the phone ringing. When these six dimensions (expected sound, expected places, expected control, expected behavior, expected activity, expected information) meet users’ expectations, the perception of users may not be negative despite the presences of any annoying sound . As a consequence of this, expectations aect people’s perceptions and evaluations of a soundscape as well as conclusions about whether a soundscape is pleasant or unpleasant. The soundscape preference outcome of people diers in dierent places and for dierent activities or functions. For example, while the reasons for preference include “peaceful” or “tranquil” for a soundscape, another soundscape may be preferred because of its “lively” or “excited” properties . Regarding the indoor soundscape approach, user preference is one of the most important factors for understanding the soundscape needs of an enclosure and to form a pleasant and acceptable soundscape. Depending on the preference, the masking tool has been discussed as a promising key in soundscape studies. The masking tool can be used to design soundscapes considering the preference factor through the identiﬁcation of wanted sounds and unwanted sounds, so that masking sounds can be promoted. In other words, preferred sounds should not be masked by unwanted sounds, or wanted sounds should mask unwanted sounds . In conclusion, the soundscape approach is a rather subjective ﬁeld because of its direct relationship with user perception. Therefore, a consideration of the contextual factors that ascertain user perception in the design process of soundscape is crucial. 4.1.3. Architectural Factors The architectural factors, which are a distinctive ﬁeld of indoor soundscaping, should be evaluated in the soundscape design process to characterize an enclosure and its relationship to the acoustic environment. Architectural factors can be evaluated under three main subjects of function, architectural properties, and physical environment (Figure 3). The two-way dotted arrows indicate the interactions between items from architectural factors with acoustical and contextual factors, whereas the two-way bold dotted arrows indicate the interactions between items within the architectural factors. Similarly, the one-way dotted arrows indicate the aected items by the identiﬁed architectural items, whereas the one-way bold arrow indicate the aected item within the architectural factors. Information on the function of a space is important for the design process of a soundscape as it can help to collect possible future predictions regarding the preferences of users. The expectations of a soundscape that usually depend on the past experiences of users diers in dierent functions. Hence, regarding the architectural design process, the type of building or space and the purpose of the space should ﬁrst be considered to address the needs of the soundscape speciﬁc to each case. The architectural properties of an indoor space aect a user ’s perception of a soundscape through its inﬂuence on sound. This can be analyzed with the properties of two-dimensional organization, volumetric shape and proportion, materials and furniture used, openings, circulation patterns, and mechanical and installation voids. Before volumetric properties, the two-dimensional organization of an enclosure should be evaluated. The layout plan of an indoor space provides information about the general overview of that place and its space interactions, which forms the base of any indoor soundscape study. Since volumetric form as well as the shape and proportion of an interior have remarkable inﬂuence on the physical properties and formation of sound, they need to be analyzed in detail to control and sustain acoustic comfort. Similarly, construction and ﬁnishing materials as well as furnishings are determinant for sound formation, and can be used as aective applications to control acoustic formation and overall acoustic quality. Acoustics 2019, 1 857 Acoustics 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19 Figure 3. Architectural factors of indoor soundscape and their influence areas [40,43,46]. Figure 3. Architectural factors of indoor soundscape and their inﬂuence areas [40,43,46]. Openings in buildings are other architectural elements that should be considered for their direct Information on the function of a space is important for the design process of a soundscape as it connection with the outdoor environment. Openings aect the audial, visual, thermal, and lighting can help to collect possible future predictions regarding the preferences of users. The expectations of characteristics of indoor spaces. Even if there are materials which have high Sound Transmission Class a soundscape that usually depend on the past experiences of users differs in different functions. (STC) ratings for window openings, transmission of sound from outdoor to indoor is usually provided Hence, regarding the architectural design process, the type of building or space and the purpose of by openings. Likewise, regarding thermal control, the air quality and usage of natural lighting and the space should first be considered to address the needs of the soundscape specific to each case. window openings should be the initial considerations for indoor environmental quality before indoor The architectural properties of an indoor space affect a user’s perception of a soundscape applications such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or artiﬁcial lighting through its influence on sound. This can be analyzed with the properties of two-dimensional design. In other words, building openings are the basic elements to design and control outdoor sound organization, volumetric shape and proportion, materials and furniture used, openings, circulation transmission, thermal and air quality, and natural light. Moreover, changes in physical environmental patterns, and mechanical and installation voids. Before volumetric properties, the two-dimensional factors, organization including of an the enclo crowding sure sho leveluld b of aneenclosur evaluated. e, a The la ect theyout psychological plan of an in condition door sp andace soundscape provides perception of users and, as a result, can lead to dierentiated overall space experience. information about the general overview of that place and its space interactions, which forms the base of any The indoo other r soun two ar dsc chitectural ape studypr . Since operties volum thateshould tric form be as underlined well as thre shap egarding e an indoor d propsoundscape ortion of an studies and the application process are circulation patterns of an enclosure or building and voids interior have remarkable influence on the physical properties and formation of sound, they need to constr be anal ucted yzed i for n mechanical detail to coand ntrol and su installation stain aco purposes. ustic com Circulation fort. Sim areas ilarlar y,e const frequently ruction used and fin transition ishing ar meas ateri that als pr asovide well as fu integration rnishings are det between other erminant spaces, foand r sound form they haveat the ion, and possibility can b of e owning used as a a f gr fect eater ive part applic ofat the ion cr sowd to cont level. rol aco Foru this stic r form eason, atithe on and possible overa inﬂuence ll acoustic on qu soundscape ality. and the requirement for it to be Openings well designed in build should ings are not ot be her ignor arch ed. itec In tuaddition, ral elemen the ts that voids should in buildin be considered gs such as for elevator their d shafts irect and connecti engine on wi rooms, th the outdoor envi etc., are sources ronment. Openi of noise generation ngs affect and th other e aud voids ial, vis for ualventilation, , thermal, and plumbing, lighting and charelectrical acteristics o installations f indoor spr paces. ovide Ev aen path if t for here sound are m transmission aterials whic between h have hi spaces. gh Sound Hence, Trans form indoor ission Class (STC) ratings for window openings, transmission of sound from outdoor to indoor is usually provided by openings. Likewise, regarding thermal control, the air quality and usage of natural Acoustics 2019, 1 858 soundscape design, importance needs to be given to the management and design of these kinds of voids to avoid causing any unwanted soundscapes. Finally, overall interior design, which includes visual integrity provided by two-dimensional organization, three-dimensional volumetric properties, ﬁnishing materials, and furnishing, can aect users’ space perception and user ’s perceptions of correlations between spaces and sound environments. In order to integrate the indoor soundscape approach into the design process, architectural factors are the primary subject to take into consideration. The functional information that forms the contextual factors, the architectural features that are used to manage sound, and the condition of a physical environment comprise the essential framework of an enclosure which is dealt with in studies or through design. 4.2. Indoor Soundscape Methods The standardization and clariﬁcation of methods and data types which have been used for obtaining related factors should be the step following factor identiﬁcation in order to integrate soundscape as a part of an architectural design. Several urban soundscape studies related to the data types and methods in the literature demonstrate methods as in situ, online, and laboratory [1,48,49], and they are presented depending on audience experience with an interdisciplinary approach . Aletta, Kang, and Axelson’s study  presents a diagram which demonstrates the relationship between audiences’ listening mode (in situ, in laboratory, or depending on the memory) data collection methods and tools. Similarly, Özçevik and Yüksel Can’s study  divided soundscape analysis methods as in situ and laboratory experiments but were demonstrated together with urban soundscape factors. Davies et al.  indicated the urban soundscape methods which they had been using in their study for audience experiences from the perspectives of dierent disciplines, and listed them according to parts of their project. In addition to these studies, the ISO 12913-2 standard also speciﬁes the data collection methods of urban soundscape. In this standard, the ﬁve methods are indicated as (1) soundwalk, (2) questionnaire, (3) guided interview, (4) sound source taxonomy, and (5) binaural measurements . These data collection methods could be used to gather detailed information on the contextual experience of the users while conducting an indoor soundscape study that was previously used in the literature . Another study on indoor soundscape classiﬁes methods, data types, and related soundscape factors for acoustical post-occupancy evaluation (POE) on three levels as “indicative” and “investigative” as the identiﬁcation phase of soundscape and “diagnostic” as the evaluative phase of soundscape . POE can be used in indoor soundscape studies in order to evaluate building performance, past design decisions, and occupant feedback together . The indicative stage is suggested to determine the space characteristics and sound sources through observation and measurements. The investigative stage is used to search for more information about the space through architectural surveying and contacting users with interviews. The last stage of POE is the diagnostic stage, which includes methods as questionnaires and soundwalks for the ﬁnal evaluation and feedback for future design . Under the scope of standardization and integration of indoor soundscaping to the architectural design and application processes, it can also be useful to classify methods based on the factors of indoor soundscape in order to evaluate the factors and methods together. A classiﬁcation of indoor soundscape methods, that can be seen in Figure 4, is prepared based on the factors proposed in Figure 1. In Figure 4, three main concepts of indoor soundscape factors and their methods for gathering data, types of data and, ﬁnally, the expected outcomes that are planned to be obtained through those methods are presented. It would also be beneﬁcial to identify the data-gathering methods of the architectural factors in detail, which are speciﬁc to the indoor soundscape framework, depending on the factors that are used. Table 3 presents the indoor soundscape architectural factors and the data-gathering methods that can be used in application. Acoustics 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19 suggested to determine the space characteristics and sound sources through observation and measurements. The investigative stage is used to search for more information about the space through architectural surveying and contacting users with interviews. The last stage of POE is the diagnostic stage, which includes methods as questionnaires and soundwalks for the final evaluation and feedback for future design . Under the scope of standardization and integration of indoor soundscaping to the architectural design and application processes, it can also be useful to classify methods based on the factors of indoor soundscape in order to evaluate the factors and methods together. A classification of indoor soundscape methods, that can be seen in Figure 4, is prepared based on the factors proposed in Figure 1. In Figure 4, three main concepts of indoor soundscape factors and their methods for gathering data, types of Acoustics 2019 dat , 1a and, finally, the expected outcomes that are planned to be obtained through those 859 methods are presented. Figure 4. A proposed model on indoor soundscaping methods based on related factors [1,5,7,40,48– Figure 4. A proposed model on indoor soundscaping methods based on related factors [1,5,7,40,48–54]. 54]. Table 3. Methods that can be used for architectural factors of indoor soundscaping. It would also be beneficial to identify the data-gathering methods of the architectural factors in EVALUATION FIELD METHODS ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS detail, which are specific to the indoor soundscape framework, depending on the factors that are Functional Identity Identiﬁcation Function used. Table 3 presents the indoor soundscape architectural factors and the data-gathering methods Organization that can be used in application. Form & Shape Geometric analysis of plans and sections Proportion 2-D Evaluation Space syntax Circulation Spatial allocation Voids Openings Proportion Volumetric analysis 3-D Evaluation Voids Architectural survey Overall Interior Design Architectural survey Materials & Furniture Evaluation of Interior Design Observation Overall Interior Design Interview Acoustic Quality Measurement Architectural Acoustics Materials & Furniture Acoustic modeling Form & Shape Air Quality Physical Environment Measurement Thermal Quality Lighting Quality Usage Crowd monitoring Crowd Level Initially, functional identiﬁcation needs to be substantiated since the function determines the user proﬁle and stands in an interaction with contextual factors. After the determination of an enclosure’s function, spatial evaluations need to be followed in order to analyze the physical, architectural, and visual characteristics of a space. These evaluations can be followed as the two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) analyses of an interior space. A geometric analysis of plans, sections, Acoustics 2019, 1 860 and spatial allocations can be used to evaluate the 2D characteristics of a space as organization, form, proportion, and circulation. Space syntax can be eective to understand the relations between spaces and their organization. Moreover, volumetric analysis and architectural surveys are needed in order to analyze the volumetric proportion, which has an inﬂuence on sound formation in addition to investigating the overall interior design. The entire acoustic quality of an interior space, which also relies on formal organization, materials and any furniture used, can be determined with acoustical measurements and acoustic modeling. The physical environmental quality, including air, thermal, and lighting quality, can be evaluated with measurements. In addition to these dimensions, crowd monitoring can be performed to determine the crowd level, which aects the quality of the physical environment, the acoustic quality and the overall space experience. The models on indoor soundscape factors (Figure 1) and methods (Figure 4) which interact with each other are prepared as an initial proposal for the standardization of indoor soundscaping principles that should be used in architectural processes. Through further studies, they can be extended and/or evolved. 5. Indoor Soundscape Integration In order to enhance the indoor soundscape approach, its integration into the architectural design and application process in the early stages is crucial . However, the subjective attribution of indoor soundscape arouses the necessity of characterizing the factors and methods required in the design process. Certainly, a possible regulation/directive will also promote the integration of indoor soundscape principles into the design process for the implementation of the standards that would be published as well as for the existing standards . During this stage, the evaluation and incorporation of present policies on noise management is highly important for the process of developing a soundscape directive. Moreover, the evaluation of existing documents (regulations/directives, guidelines, and standards) related to noise management is crucial since a possible future regulation on soundscape would include noise interventions. In other words, since the soundscape approach involves noise management, noise policies and any related published document should be a part of the procedures involving soundscape regulations and standards . Therefore, governmental/ocial enforcements and support would be the most convenient procedure in order to integrate indoor soundscaping into architectural and design processes. When the existing policies on noise management and soundscape are investigated so as to propose an integration model for an indoor context, a formal process has been revealed, consisting of ﬁve stages: (1) organization, (2) standardization, (3) governmental enforcements, (4) supplying information, and (5) supervision and maintenance. The ﬁve-stage process, revealed from the evaluation of existing policies and applications on noise management and the interaction between the entities, is presented in Figure 5. The direct ﬂow of the ﬁve-stage process is identiﬁed by the bold one-way arrows and the interrelations between the ﬁve-stage process, and the architectural design and application process is identiﬁed by the dotted one-way arrows. As observed from the scheme, indoor soundscape factors and methods are directly linked with the architectural design and application process, yet the intricate relationships among these items are to be revealed as part of a future design linked with this study. The ﬁrst stage of integration was revealed as the establishment of governmental institutions and/or working groups funded by the government regarding indoor soundscaping to initiate a formal procedure of future implications. This stage was started in Europe within the context of the urban soundscape through the ISO working group (ISO/TC 43/SCI/WG 54) in addition to the actions and projects funded by the EC and/or agencies of the EC. However, in Turkey, these types of organizations are neither found in urban nor in indoor contexts of the soundscape approach. Acoustics 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19 published as well as for the existing standards . During this stage, the evaluation and incorporation of present policies on noise management is highly important for the process of developing a soundscape directive. Moreover, the evaluation of existing documents (regulations/directives, guidelines, and standards) related to noise management is crucial since a possible future regulation on soundscape would include noise interventions. In other words, since the soundscape approach involves noise management, noise policies and any related published document should be a part of the procedures involving soundscape regulations and standards . Therefore, governmental/official enforcements and support would be the most convenient procedure in order to integrate indoor soundscaping into architectural and design processes. When the existing policies on noise management and soundscape are investigated so as to propose an integration model for an indoor context, a formal process has been revealed, consisting of five stages: (1) organization, (2) standardization, (3) governmental enforcements, (4) supplying information, and (5) supervision and maintenance. The five-stage process, revealed from the evaluation of existing policies and applications on noise management and the interaction between the entities, is presented in Figure 5. The direct flow of the five-stage process is identified by the bold one-way arrows and the interrelations between the five-stage process, and the architectural design and application process is identified by the dotted one-way arrows. As observed from the scheme, indoor soundscape factors and methods are directly linked with the architectural design and Acoustics application 2019, 1 process, yet the intricate relationships among these items are to be revealed as part of 861 a future design linked with this study. Figure 5. Integration process of indoor soundscaping into architectural design and application. Figure 5. Integration process of indoor soundscaping into architectural design and application. The preparations for standardization of indoor soundscaping, which would include the deﬁnitions of the concept and identiﬁcation of factors and methods, represent a prominent stage for providing standardized information and procedures for the architectural design phase. The standardization of principles has major importance since the essential need for integration reveals a regulation which should refer to a standard rule, method, and process. With the evaluation of present policies, the attempts of this stage were found neither in Turkey nor in Europe. As can be observed in noise management applications, regulations have had great eects on enforcing the observance of rules and standards during the design and construction process. Therefore, preparing a standard would be insucient to obligate the integration of indoor soundscaping in practice. Thus, as a third stage of integration, an indoor soundscape regulation/directive would become an enforcement for architectural application processes prepared based on indoor soundscape and acoustics standards. When the present noise management applications were investigated, it was seen that the published guidelines were also signiﬁcant documents for provide information to public and related disciplines, and are also beneﬁcial for the implementation of related regulations. Hence, the preparation of a guideline can be deemed the fourth stage in the integration process of indoor soundscaping. Finally, supervision and maintenance should be provided by experts and authorities who are assigned Acoustics 2019, 1 862 by governmental institutions and/or ministries to manage the implementation process of indoor soundscaping. Without doubt, during this entire process, the support of and consultation from experts and authorities are essential. 6. Conclusions Indoor acoustic environment quality is one of the foremost subjects for improving the welfare of people since people spend most of their time in indoor spaces. Without doubt, noise management has been of great importance, but the noise interventions in recent years have been insucient. It has even been argued that the soundscape approach should replace noise management. Therefore, the soundscape approach, which also includes noise management, could be a better approach towards managing an entire acoustic environment as it has an extensive multifactorial scope, i.e., it is not limited to acoustical measurements but also considers human perception and the context. In this study, the essential aim was to investigate the possibility of an indoor soundscaping model integrated with the architectural design and application process as an initial step to promote policy development regarding the indoor soundscape ﬁeld and to initiate its presence in architectural practice. Therefore, as the initial stage of this study, the present and ongoing policies in Turkey and the European Union (where the soundscape policies are more advanced in comparison with Turkey) on soundscape and noise management were evaluated in a detailed and comparative manner. Governmental and institutional documents on noise management directives, guidelines, and standards were compared, and it was seen that Turkish directives have been prepared as equivalents to the European directives with the exception of the regulation on the protection of buildings against noise. Similarly, the acoustical standards of the TSE, which have been used in the regulations/directives, have been translated from ISO standards and the Turkish noise guidelines have been prepared under the scope of the EU twinning project. Hence, it was seen that the noise management policies of the EU and Turkey are compatible. However, this compatibility cannot be observed regarding the soundscape approach, i.e., a governmental operation on the soundscape approach could not be found in Turkey. Following the above-described stage, the evaluation of extensive factors and methods of indoor soundscaping have been presented in order to understand the philosophy and advantages of the soundscape approach in comparison to noise management. In the scope of indoor soundscaping, an advanced approach regarding its integration into the design process both in Turkey and EU has not been developed. Yet, ISO 12913-1 clearly exempliﬁes that it is possible to standardize the indoor soundscape factors as well. Therefore, this study aimed to present a proposal for an indoor soundscaping integration model that was produced through the evaluation of existing policies on urban soundscaping and noise management as a starting point for policy development regarding indoor soundscaping. When these policies were considered, a systematic process was observed, and this process could be demonstrated in ﬁve stages while adapting it to the indoor soundscaping integration model: 1. Establishment of an institution or working group relying on the subject; 2. Preparation of a standard including deﬁnitions, indoor soundscape factors and methods; 3. Preparation of a directive; 4. Preparation of guidelines to provide information to the public and related disciplines about the concept of indoor soundscaping and implementation of the directive; and 5. Providing maintenance and supervision by experts and authorities. This model was presented as an initial proposal for indoor soundscaping integration with architectural design and application. Future follow-up studies are planned which involve (1) identification of the architectural design and application process phases, (2) investigation of the relations within each phase between indoor soundscaping factors and methods through case studies, and (3) derivation of conclusions to ﬁnalize the indoor soundscape integration model such that it is applicable in practice regarding architectural design and application. Acoustics 2019, 1 863 In conclusion, in order to provide a healthy and pleasant sound environment, it is more advantageous if the soundscape approach is integrated into the architectural process in the early stages instead of being solely limited to noise management. The most ecient method to enhance an acoustic environment is the integration of soundscape into the design and planning process with governmental enforcements/operations. In the European region, the ﬁrst attempts at this approach have been seen in recent years regarding the urban scale. In fact, indoor soundscaping should also be within the scope of soundscape integration projects in order to enhance the entire sound environment in which people live. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, U.B.E. and P.N.D.Y.; Investigation, U.B.E. and P.N.D.Y.; Methodology, U.B.E. and P.N.D.Y.; Project administration, P.N.D.Y.; Resources, U.B.E. and P.N.D.Y.; Supervision, P.N.D.Y.; Writing—original draft, U.B.E.; Writing—review & editing, U.B.E. and P.N.D.Y. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Axelsson, Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 149, 65–74. [CrossRef] 2. Kang, J.; Chourmouziadou, K.; Sakantamis, K.; Wang, B.; Hao, Y. (Eds.) Soundscape of European Cities and Landscapes; Soundscape-COST: Oxford, UK, 2013. 3. Kang, J.; Schulte-Fortkamp, B. (Eds.) Soundscape and the Built Environment; CRC Press Taylar & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. 4. ISO 12913-1:2014. Acoustics-Soundscape Part 1: Definition and Conceptual Framework; ISO: Genève, Switzerland, 2014. 5. ISO/TS 12913-2:2018. Part 2: Data Collection and Reporting Requirements; ISO: Genève, Switzerland, 2018. 6. Erçakmak, B. An In-Depth Evaluation of Noise Management and Soundscape Policies: A Proposal on Integrating Indoor Soundscaping to Design and Application Process. Master‘s Thesis, Çankaya University, Ankara, Turkey, 2019. 7. Erçakmak, B.; Yörükoglu, ˘ P.N.D. The role of indoor soundscape methodology: From architectural design process to establishment of regulations. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics (ICA), Aachen, Germany, 9–13 September 2019; pp. 1–8. 8. Erçakmak, B.; Yorukoglu, P.N.D. Ulusal ve uluslararasi akustik standartların ve gürültü yönetmeliklerinin isitsel ¸ peyzaj odaklı irdelenmesi [Analysis of national and international acoustic standards and noise management policies within the scope of soundscape]. In Proceedings of the 13rd Ulusal Akustik Kongresi, Diyarbakır, Türkiye, 17–18 October 2019; pp. 227–236. 9. ISO. ISO/PRF TS 12913-3. Acoustics-Soundscape Part 3: Data Analysis. Under development. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/69864.html (accessed on 24 October 2019). 10. EEA. Good Practice Guide on Quite Areas; Publication Oce of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014. 11. Aletta, F.; Kang, J. Soundscape approach integrating noise mapping techniques: A case study in Brighton, UK. Noise Map. 2015, 2, 1–12. [CrossRef] 12. Brown, A.L. A review of progress in soundscapes and an approach to soundscape planning. Int. J. Acoust. Vib. 2012, 17, 73–81. [CrossRef] 13. Kang, J.; Aletta, F.; Oberman, T.; Erfanian, M.; Kachlicka, M.; Lionello, M.; Mitchell, A. Towards soundscape indices. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics (ICA 2019), Aachen, Germany, 9–13 September 2019; pp. 2488–2495. 14. EC CORDIS Web Site. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/211802/factsheet/en (accessed on 21 June 2019). 15. Çevresel gürültünün degerlendirilmesi ˘ ve yönetimi yönetmeligi ˘ [Regulation on assessment and management of environmental noise]. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2010, 14012. 16. The assessment and management of environmental noise. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2002, 49, 12–25. 17. Çalısanların ¸ gürültü ile ilgili risklerden korunmalarına dair yönetmelik (Regulation on protection of workers from risks arising from noise). Resmi Gazete O. J. 2013, 18647. 18. The minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise). Resmi Gazete O. J. 2003, 10, 38–44. Acoustics 2019, 1 864 19. Açık alanda kullanılan teçhizat tarafından olustur ¸ ulan çevredeki gürültü emisyonu ile ilgili yönetmelik [Regulation on noise emission in the environment generated by outdoor equipment]. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2006, 2000/14/AT. 20. The approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2000, 2000/14/EC, 1–78. 21. Motorlu araçların dıs ¸ gürültü emisyonları ve egzoz sistemleri ile ilgili tip onayı yönetmeligi ˘ [Regulations for external noise emissions and exhaust systems of motor vehicles]. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2000, 70/157/AT. 22. Establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2007, 46/EC, 1–265. 23. Binaların gürültüye karsı ¸ korunması hakkında yönetmelik [Regulation on the protection of buildings against noise]. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2017, 23616. 24. The establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2014, 598, 65–78. 25. Amending Directive 2000/14/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors. Resmi Gazete O. J. 2005, 88/EC, 44–46. 26. WHO. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region; World Health Organization Regional Oce for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. 27. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. Gürültü Azaltım Tedbirleri Katalogu ˘ [Guideline of Noise Reduction Precautions]; Cevre ve Sehircilik Bakanligi ˘ [Ministry of Environment and Urbanization]: Ankara, Turkey, 2015. 28. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. Çevresel Gürültü Ölçüm ve Degerlendirme ˘ Kılavuzu [Guideline on Environmental Noise Measurement and Evaluation]; Cevre ve Sehircilik Bakanligi ˘ [Ministry of Environment and Urbanization]: Ankara, Turkey, 2011. 29. WHO. Guidelines for Community Noise; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. 30. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. Gürültü Haritalandırma Kılavuzu [Noise Mapping Guideline]; Cevre ve Sehircilik Bakanligi ˘ [Ministry of Environment and Urbanization]: Ankara, Turkey, 2008. 31. WHO. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe; World Health Organization Regional Oce for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009. 32. WHO. Methodology for Systematic Evidence Reviews for the Who Noise Guidelines for European Region; WHO Regional Oce for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. 33. WHO. Biological Mechanisms Related to Cardiovascular and Metabolic Eects by Environmental Noise; WHO Regional Oce for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. 34. WHO. Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise; WHO Regional Oce for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. 35. WHO. Results from the Search for Available Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Environmental Noise; WHO Regional Oce for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. 36. European Commission. Good Practice Guide for Strategic Noise Mapping and the Production of Associated Data on Noise Exposure; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. 37. EEA. Good Practice Guide on Noise Exposure and Potential Health Eects; Publication Oce of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010. 38. ISO 1996-1:2016. Acoustics-Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise—Part 1: Basic Quantities and Assessment Procedures; ISO: Genève, Switzerland, 2016. 39. ISO 1996-2:1987. Acoustics-Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 2: Acquisition of Data Pertinent to Land Use; ISO: Genève, Switzerland, 1987. 40. Aburawis, A.A.M.; Yorukoglu, P.N.D. An integrated framework on soundscape perception and spatial experience by adapting post-occupancy evaluation methodology. Build. Acoust. 2018, 25, 3–16. [CrossRef] 41. Bild, E.; Coler, M.; Pfeer, K.; Bertolini, L. Considering Sound in Planning and Designing Public Spaces. J. Plan. Lit. 2016, 31, 419–434. [CrossRef] 42. Bruce, N.S.; Davies, W.J. The effects of expectation on the perception of soundscapes. Appl. Acoust. 2014, 85, 1–11. [CrossRef] 43. Yorukoglu, P.N.D.; Kang, J. Analysing Sound Environment and Architectural Characteristics of Libraries through Indoor Soundscape Framework. Arch. Acoust. 2016, 41, 203–212. [CrossRef] Acoustics 2019, 1 865 44. Herranz Pascual, K.; Aspuru, I.; García, I. Proposed Conceptual Model of Environmental Experience as Framework to Study the Soundscape. In Proceedings of the Inter Noise 2010, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–16 June 2010; pp. 1–9. 45. Torresin, S.; Albatici, R.; Aletta, F.; Babich, F.; Kang, J. Assessment Methods and Factors Determining Positive Indoor Soundscapes in Residential Buildings: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5290. [CrossRef] 46. Yilmazer, S.; Acun, V. A grounded theory approach to assess indoor soundscape in historic religious spaces of Anatolian culture: A case study on Hacı Bayram Mosque. Build. Acoust. 2018, 25, 137–150. [CrossRef] 47. André, F. The link between soundscape perception and attention processes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012, 131, 3437. [CrossRef] 48. Ozcevik, A.; Can, Z.Y. A laboratory study on the evaluation of soundscape. In Proceedings of the Acoustics 2012, Nantes, France, 23 April 2012. 49. Radicchi, A. Beyond the Noise: Open Source Soundscapes. A mixed methodology to analyze and plan small, quiet areas on the local scale, applying the soundscape approach, the citizen science paradigm, and open source technology. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017, 141, 3622. [CrossRef] 50. Davies, W.J.; Adams, M.D.; Bruce, N.S.; Cain, R.; Carlyle, A.; Cusack, P.; Hall, D.A.; Hume, K.I.; Irwin, A.; Jennings, P.; et al. Perception of soundscapes: An interdisciplinary approach. Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 224–231. [CrossRef] 51. Yorukoglu, P.N.D.; Kang, J. Development and testing of Indoor Soundscape Questionnaire for evaluating contextual experience in public spaces. Build. Acoust. 2017, 24, 307–324. [CrossRef] 52. Aburawis, A.A.M.; Yörükoglu, ˘ P.N.D. Occupant experience of indoor soundscapes in university oce spaces. In Proceedings of the Euronoise 2018 Crete, Ankara, Turkey, 27–31 May 2018; pp. 2339–2345. 53. Raimbault, M.; Dubois, D. Urban soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cities 2005, 22, 339–350. [CrossRef] 54. Axelsson, O.; Nilsson, M.E.; Berglund, B. A principal components model of soundscape perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128, 2836–2846. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Acoustics – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Published: Nov 8, 2019
Keywords: soundscape application; soundscape policies; noise management policies; indoor soundscape factors; indoor soundscape methods
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.