Technical Note

Urban Soundscapes: Characterization of a Pedestrian

Tourist Route in Sorrento (Italy)
Francesco Aletta 1, *, Giovanni Brambilla 2 , Luigi Maffei 3 and Massimiliano Masullo 3
1 School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
2 Institute of Acoustics and Sensors O.M. Corbino, CNR, Via Cassia 121, Rome 00187, Italy;
giovanni.brambilla@idasc.cnr.it
3 Department of Architecture and Industrial Design, Universit degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli,
Borgo San Lorenzo, Aversa 81031, Italy; luigi.maffei@unina2.it (L.M.);
massimiliano.masullo@unina2.it (M.M.)
* Correspondence: f.aletta@sheffield.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-114-222-0325

Academic Editors: Deborah Edwards and Michael Peter Smith

Received: 26 September 2016; Accepted: 30 November 2016; Published: 2 December 2016

Abstract: The tourist experience of built environments has received a lot of attention in tourism
marketing and management research. Several studies have shown that the environmental qualities of
a place can contribute to its aesthetic appreciation and overall expectation of tourists. Such aesthetic
qualities, such as scenery and soundscapes, should thus be regarded as key components of tourists
satisfaction. This study proposes that a soundscape approach could be a suitable tool in tourism
management, due to its general purpose of enhancing the users experience of a place, taking into
account the acoustic dimension of the environment. Within this framework, this paper describes
the characterization of the soundscape of a pedestrian tourist route in Sorrento (Italy). For this
purpose, a group of acoustics experts, architects, and planners used the soundwalk method to collect
recordings and perceptual data about the sound environment along a pre-defined tourist path.
The results suggest that the tourists perceptual construct is underpinned by both visual and aural
elements contributing to soundscape appreciation.

Keywords: soundscape; tourism aspects; urban identity

1. Introduction
The term soundscape in its current meaning dates back to the early 1970s, when it was
introduced by the Canadian composer R. M. Schafer at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver [1].
Schafer and his research group defined soundscape as [an] environment of sound (or sonic
environment) with emphasis on the way it is perceived and understood by the individual, or by
a society [2].
Hitherto, the concept has attracted interest from both applied and social sciences, as well as arts
and humanities, due to its strong interdisciplinary appeal. Over the years, an increasing number
of studies have been published, proposing theoretical models for soundscape characterization and
practical approaches for its improvement. In 2014, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) published a new International Standard, ISO 12913-Part 1, on soundscape, which defines the
word as [the] acoustic environment as perceived or experienced and/or understood by a person or
people, in context [3].
Despite a vibrant debate in this research field about overall agenda and methods, there is a general
agreement that the soundscape differs from the acoustic environment inasmuch as the former is a
perceptual construct, whereas the latter is a physical phenomenon. Within this framework, it has to
be assumed that soundscape only exists through human perception of the acoustic environment [4,5].

Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4; doi:10.3390/urbansci1010004 www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci

Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4 2 of 10

To some extent, this assumption is in line with the definition of landscape provided by the Landscape
Convention, as an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and
interaction of natural and/or human factors [6].
Overall, the soundscape approach emphasizes the users experience of the acoustic environment
of a place. Thus, it seems fair to assume that sound should also contribute in shaping a dimension of
the tourist aesthetic judgment and the tourism experience in general.
Tourism experience has been thoroughly investigated in tourism marketing and management
literature (e.g., [7,8]). It has been proved that the environmental qualities of a destination can contribute
to its aesthetic appreciation and impact the overall tourist experience [9]. Thus, such aesthetic qualities,
such as scenery and sound environment, should be regarded as key components of tourists satisfaction.
The auditory dimension is increasingly gaining attention in cultural heritage studies [10,11] thanks
to the framework provided by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) Convention on the Intangible Cultural Heritage [12], and the soundscape approach has also
been considered in a number of studies connected to the tourism management of natural areas [1316].
However, there are relatively few studies considering the soundscape within the urban realm, rather
than in natural areas, from the tourists perspective. Liu et al. [17] investigated the perception of
the sound environment by both tourists and acoustic experts in historical areas of Beijing, finding
significant differences between the two groups. Puyana Romero et al. [18] observed significant
differences in the soundscape individual appraisals between tourists and residents in their study on
the soundscape of the waterfront of Naples, in the city centre.
On the assumption that the soundscape approach could also be a suitable tool in tourism
management, due to its general purpose of enhancing the users experience of a place by taking into
account the acoustic dimension of the environment, this paper presents the results of the soundscape
characterization of a common tourist route in Sorrento (Italy). For this purpose, a group of acoustics
experts, architects, and planners used the soundwalk method to collect perceptual data about the
sound environment along a pre-defined tourist path.

2. Methods
Individual responses about the perception of the sound environment along a pre-defined typical
tourist route and acoustics data were collected through a soundwalk in the city centre of Sorrento. The
current section provides details on the participants, the experimental protocol, and the questionnaires
submitted to the participants during the soundwalk.
The soundwalk is a conventional method in soundscape studies that enables a researcher to collect
individual responses on the perception of the acoustic environment [19,20] and simultaneous audio
recordings. Usually, soundwalks are participatory sound and listening walks performed in groups
(soundwalk sessions) across an investigated environment. During these sessions, the investigator
usually makes binaural sound recordings and collects the perceptual responses of the participants to
the acoustical, visual, and aesthetic environment through questionnaires.
For the purposes of this study, 11 spots along a common tourist pedestrian route were selected in
the Sorrento city centre. The rationale for selecting such spots was to provide a set of urban contexts
having a specific tourist appeal (e.g., commercial street, quiet area, seaside), with varied and diverse
acoustic environments. Sixteen participants, 26 to 47 years old (10 males, Mean age = 34.6, Standard
Deviation = 6.8), attended the soundwalk. The participants group included soundscape experts,
acousticians, architecture and planning professionals, and local authorities officers. All of them could
be considered as tourists, since they were not residents and visited Sorrento for the first time.
In the literature there is still no evident consensus on the criteria to select participants for a
soundwalk [21,22], i.e., whether laymen, residents, or experts should be invited to take part. However,
some authors suggest that expert and/or trained listeners might provide more useful insights (e.g., [20]).
Due to its exploratory nature, for this study it was agreed to have participants not familiar with the
study area to represent the tourist perception; however, at the same time they had to be familiar with
Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4 3 of 10

the soundscape concept, to be able to reflect possible outputs of the investigation into a broader urban
planning and design framework. Participants were sorted into four groups (A, B, C, and D) of four
people each.Urban
TheSci.
Urban groups
Sci. 1, 44 were led by investigators who walked across the study area and
2016, 1,
2016, 33 ofstopped
of 10
10 at
Urban
Urban Sci.
Sci. 2016,
2016, 1,
1, 4 3 of 10
11 selected locations.
Urban Sci.
Urban Sci. 2016, 1, 44
2016,The
1, 4 spots were selected to be representative of potential tourist routes 3
3 of
3 of 10
10 and to
of 10
Urban
B, C, Sci.
C, Sci.
Urban 2016,
and2016, 1, 44four people each. The groups were led by investigators who walked across the study
D) of
of
1, 333 of
of 10
10
have varied B,
Urban
B, C,
Urban
B,
Urban
area
and
Sci.
acoustic
and
Sci.
D)
2016,
D)
Sci. 2016,
C, and D)
2016,
1,
of
1,
of
stopped
4four people
environments
1, 44four
fouratpeople
people
each. The groups were led by investigators who walked across the study
(seelocations.
each.
each.
11 selected Table
The
The 1).
groups
groups were
were
The led by
by investigators
ledwere
spots investigators who
who
selected to be walked
walked acrossof the
across
representative the 33 of
study
studyof 10
of 10
potential 10
B, C,
C,and
area
B, and stopped
and D) of
D) of four
four people
atpeople each.locations.
11 selected
each. The groups
The groupsThewere ledwere
spots
were led by investigators
by investigators
selected to be who walked across
across
representative
who walked the
of the study
potential
study
area
B, C, and
area
B, C, and
and stopped
D) of
ofand
stopped
D) fourat
four
at 11
11 selected
people each.locations.
selected
topeople each. The groups
locations.
The groupsThe
The spots
were ledwere
spots
were led by(see
were
by selected
selected
investigatorsto
investigators
to be
be
whorepresentative
who walked across
representative
walked of
across
of potential
the study
potential
tourist
area
B, C, and
tourist
area
B, C,
routes
stopped
D)
routes
and
and D) of
of four
and
stopped at
to
at
four
have
11
people
have
11
people
varied
selected
each.
varied
selected
each.
acoustic
locations.
The
acoustic
locations.
The
environments
groupsThe spots
were led
environments
groupsThe spots
were ledwere
by
were
by(see Table 1).
selected
Table
selected
1).
investigatorsto be
to
investigators be representative
who walked
representative
who walked ofthe
across
of
across
study
potential
the study
potential
the study
tourist
area
B, C, and
tourist
area routes
and D)
Table
and of
routes and
stopped
1.
and
stopped to
at
four
The
to have
11
people
11
have varied
selected
each.
spots of
varied acoustic
locations.
The
the environments
groups
acoustic The spots
were
soundwalk: led
environmentswere
by(see
names, Table
selected 1).
to
investigators
(see views,
Table be
and
1). representative
who walked of
across
descriptions. potential
the study
tourist
area and
tourist
area routes
routes
and and at
stopped
and
stopped to 11
at
to
at have
11
selected
have
11 variedlocations.
selected
varied
selected acoustic
locations.
The
The
spots
acoustic environments
locations. environments
The spots
spots
were
were
were
selected
(see
(seeselected
Table
selected
to
Table 1).
1).
to
to
be
be
be
representative
representative
representative
of
of
of
potential
potential
potential
tourist
area and
tourist routes
routes andTable
stopped
and to
to have
at have varied
11 1.selected
The 11
varied acoustic
locations.
spots of the
acoustic environments
The spots were
soundwalk:
environments (see
names,
(see Table 1).
selected
views,
Table 1).
to be
and representative of potential
descriptions.
tourist
tourist routes
routes andTable
to 1. The
have 11 spots
varied of theenvironments
acoustic soundwalk: names,
(see views,
Table and descriptions.
1).
ID routes and
touristSpot to
to have
andTable
Table
Table
1.
1.
varied
1. The
have 11
varied
The
The 11
acoustic
11 spots of theenvironments
of the
acoustic
spots
spots of the
soundwalk:
environments
soundwalk:
(see
soundwalk: names,
names,
names,
Table
Table 1).
(see views,
views,
views,
and
and descriptions.
1).
and descriptions.
descriptions.
ID
ID Spot Table 1. The 11 spots of theView
Table 1.
Spot Table 1. The 11 soundwalk:
View
11 spots
spots of the names,
the soundwalk:
soundwalk:
View
views, and descriptions.
names, views,
Description
Description
views, and descriptions.
descriptions. Description
ID
ID Spot
Spot Table 1. The
The 11 spots of
of the View
soundwalk:
View
names,
names, views, and
and descriptions. Description
Description
ID
ID Via Table
Spot
Spot
Via Table 1.
1. The
The 11
11 spots
spots of
of the
the soundwalk:
View
soundwalk:
View
names,
names, views,
views, and
and descriptions.
descriptions. Description
Description
ID
ID Spot
Via
Spot View
View Busy
Busy Description
narrow
Busy
narrow
Description road road
narrow
road
ViaID CorrealeVia
Correale
Spot
Correale
Via View BusyDescription
narrow road
1 ID
ID 1 Spot
Via
Spot
Correale View
View towardsBusy Description
towardsnarrow
the city
Description city road
thecentre.
city centre.
1
(Hotel Via
Correale
(Hotel towardsBusy the
narrow centre.
road
11 Carlton) Via
(Hotel
Correale
Via
Correale towards
towards
Busy
Busy
In front
narrow
In the
narrow
the of city
city
front a
road
centre.
road
centre.
hotel.
of a hotel.
1 1 (Hotel
Via
Correale
(Hotel
Carlton)
Via Busy
In
towards
towardsBusyfront narrow
the
narrow
the of a
city
city road
hotel.
centre.
road
centre.
Correale
Carlton)
(Hotel In
Busyfront theof
narrow a hotel.
road
111 Correale
(Hotel
Carlton)
Correale
(Hotel
Carlton)
Correale
towards
towards
towards
In
Busy
In
In
front
front
front
narrow
the
the
of
of
city
ofcity
city
a
a centre.
hotel.
road
centre.
a hotel.
hotel.
centre.
11 (Hotel
Carlton) towardsIn front
front the of city centre.
(Hotel
Carlton)
(Hotel
Carlton)
(Hotel
Busy
towards
Busy In
In
large
large
front
the of aaa hotel.
square,
city
square,
of
hotel.
hotel.
hub
centre.
hub
Carlton)
Piazza
Carlton) Busy
Busy In
for large
front
large
taxisBusy square,
of aalarge
square,
and hotel.
public hub
square,
hub
Piazza
Carlton) Busy In front
for taxis
largeand of
square, hotel.
public hub
2 22
Piazza Carlton)
Piazza
Tasso
Piazza
Tasso
Busy
hub
Busyforfor
for
large
taxis
large
taxis
transport. taxis square,
and
square,
andCafs andpublic
public
hub
public
hub transport.
and
222 Tasso
Piazza
Piazza Busy
Busy for large
transport.
for taxis
large
taxis square,
Cafs
and
square,
and public
public hub
and
hub
2 Tasso
Piazza
Tasso transport.
Busy
Busy large
Cafs
for taxis
taxis
transport.
restaurants.
large andCafs
square,
and
Cafs
square, publicand
hub
restaurants.
and
hub
Piazza
Tasso for restaurants.
transport. andCafs publicand
222 Piazza
Tasso
Piazza
Tasso
Piazza
for
for
taxis
transport.
for restaurants.
taxis
transport.
restaurants.
taxis
and
andCafs
Cafs
and
public
and
public
publicand
22 Tasso
Tasso transport.
restaurants.
Pedestrian
transport.
restaurants. Cafs
Cafs narrow and
and
Tasso
Via
TassoS. Pedestrian
transport.
restaurants.
transport. Cafs
Cafsnarrow and
and
Via S. Pedestrian
restaurants.
Pedestrian
street, full of
restaurants. narrow
narrow
of local
Via
Via S.
S. Pedestrian
street,
Pedestrian full
restaurants. narrow street,
local
narrow
33 Cesareo
Cesareo
Via S.
Via S. Pedestrian
restaurants.
street,
Pedestrian
street,
shops full
full
with
narrow
of local
narrow
of local
typical
3 Via S.33 Cesareo 3737
Cesareo
Via
CesareoS. fullwith
Pedestrian
shops
street,
Pedestrian
street, of local
full
full narrow
oftypical
narrow
of shops with
local
local
33 Via37
Via
CesareoS.
CesareoS. shops
Pedestrian
street,
shops
Pedestrian with
full of
with
products. oftypical
narrow
local
typical
narrow
37
Via
37S. street,
shops typical
full
products.
with products.
local
typical
333 Cesareo
Via
Cesareo
37
Cesareo
37
S. street,
shops
street,
shops
street,
full
with
products.
full
with
products.
full of
of
of local
typical
local
typical
local
33 Cesareo
37
Cesareo shops
shops with
products.
with
products. typical
typical
37
Largo
37 Smallshops
shops busy with
products.
with typical
pedestrian
typical
Largo
37
37 Small products.
busy
products. pedestrian
Largo
Largo Small
squarebusy
Small withpedestrian
products.
busy pedestrian
44 Sedil
Largo
Sedil
Sedil
Largo
Largo square
Small
Smallbusy
Small
products.
with
busybusy
cafs and
cafs
pedestrian and
pedestrian
pedestrian square
4 44 Sedil
Largo
Sedil
Dominova square
Small
square with
busy
with
shops. cafs
pedestrian
cafs and
and
444 Dominova
Dominova Largo
Sedil
Largo
Sedil Small
square
Small
square busy
with shops.
with
busy
with pedestrian
cafscafsand
pedestrian
cafs andshops.
and
Dominova
Largo
Sedil
Dominova
Largo Small
square
Small busy busyshops.
with
shops. pedestrian
cafs
pedestrian and
44 Sedil
Dominova
Sedil square
square with
shops.
with cafs
cafs and
and
44 Dominova
Sedil
Dominova
Sedil square
square with
shops.
shops.
with cafs
cafs and and
Dominova
Vico
Dominova shops.
shops.
Vico
Dominova
Dominova Small shops.
pedestrian
shops.
5 Vico
Vico
Secondo Small pedestrian
5 Secondo
Vico
Vico square Small
Small withpedestrian
pedestrian
few shops. shops. square
Vico 55 Secondo
Secondo
Vico
Secondo
Fuoro square Small
Small
Small with pedestrian
few
pedestrian
pedestrian
5 555Fuoro Vico
Fuoro
Secondo
Vico
Secondo square
square Small with
with few
pedestrian
few shops.
shops.
Fuoro
Vico
Secondo
Fuoro
Vico square
square Small
Small with
with pedestrian
with few
pedestrian
few few shops.
shops.
shops.
55 Secondo
Fuoro
Secondo
Fuoro square Small
Small with pedestrian
few shops.
pedestrian shops.
55 Secondo
Fuoro
Secondo square
square Small with
with few
pedestrian
few shops.
Fuoro
Via S.
Fuoro S. square
square Small with
withpedestrian
few
few shops.shops.
Via
Fuoro square Small
Small inpedestrian
pedestrian
Fuoro
Via
Via S.
S. square Small in aa residential
residential
pedestrian
66 Cesareo
Cesareo
Via S.
Via S. square
square
area
Small
Small
with inpedestrian
in a church
residential
pedestrian
a residential and square
66 Cesareo
Via
CesareoS.
81S. area
square
square
Small
Small
with
Small in aapedestrian
inpedestrian
church
residential
pedestrian
residential and
Via81 area with
Small a church
pedestrian and
6 Via S.666 Cesareo Cesareo
Via
Cesareo
81
Via S.
81
CesareoS.
square
area
square
area
square
with
Smalla
witha in
in
in a aa residential
hospital.
hospital.
in a
residential
church
pedestrian
residential
church and area
and
66 81
Via
81 S.
Cesareo area
square with a aaa church
hospital. residential and
66 Cesareo
81
Cesareo
area
square
area with with
with aain
hospital.
in church residential
aaaachurch
church
residential andanda hospital.
and
81
Cesareo
81 area
area withaa
witha
hospital.
hospital.
a
hospital.
church
church and
and
81
81 area Pedestrian
with
a a church
hospital.
Pedestrian route
route and
Via Sopra
Via Sopra
81 aa hospital.
Pedestrian
hospital. route
7 7 Via Sopra Pedestrian
towards
towards a
Pedestrian the
hospital.
the Marina route
Marina
route
Via
le Sopra
Mura Pedestrian route
77 le Mura
Via
Via Sopra
Sopra
le Mura
Mura
towards
Pedestrian
towards Grande.
Pedestrian
Grande.
the Marina
the Marina
route
route
77 Via
le
Via Sopra
Sopra
leMura
Mura
towards
Pedestrian
towards Grande.
Pedestrian
the Marina
Pedestrian
the Marina
route
route route
7 777
Via Sopra lele
Via
Via
Via
Sopra
Mura
Sopra
le Mura
Mura
Sopra
towards
towards
towards
towards
Grande.
Pedestrian
Grande.
Grande.
the Marina
the
thethe
Marina
route
Marina
Marina Grande.
77 le
le Mura towards Grande.
Pedestrian
towards the
the Marina route
Marina
le
le Mura
Belvedere
Mura Grande.
Pedestrian
Grande. route
Belvedere Pedestrian
Grande.
Pedestrian
towards the route
route
Marina
Belvedere
Belvedere towards Grande.
Pedestrian the Marina route
88 Marina
Marina
Belvedere Grande
Pedestrian
towards
Pedestrian
towards with the
the
route
Marina
route
Marina
88 Belvedere
Marina
Belvedere
Marina
Grande Grande Pedestrian
towards
Pedestrian
towards with theaaMarina
the
view on
route
view
Marina
route
on
888 Belvedere
Grande
Marina
Belvedere
Marina Grande Pedestrian
towards
Grande with
Pedestrian
with
the
Pedestrian thesea. aMarina
a view on
route
view
route on
route
Belvedere Marina
Grande
Belvedere
Marina
Grande
Belvedere towards
Grande
towards
Grande the
with
with the
sea.
the aMarina
view
Marina
aaMarina
view on
on
8 88 Marina
Grande
Marina
Grande towards
towards
Grande
towards the
with
the the
sea.
the
sea.
the Marina
view
Marina on Grande
Grande
88 Marina
Grande Grande
Pedestrian
Grande with
the
with sea. a
route view
aa view closeon
Marina
Grande
Grande Pedestrian
Grande
Grande with the
with
the
with asea.
view
route
sea. a view
view onon
close onthe sea.
on
Grande
Marina Pedestrian
Pedestrian
to the smallthe
small
the route
sea.
route
harbour
sea. close
close of
Grande
Marina to the
Pedestrian the harbour
route
sea. close of
9 Marina Pedestrian
to the the route sea. close
9
99 Marina
Grande
Grande
Marina to
Marina the small
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Marina
to the small
Grande
Grande
small
harbour
route
harbour
route
harbour and
and
close
close
of
of
the
the
of
Marina
Grande Pedestrian
to
Marina the
Pedestrian small
Grande route
harbour
route andclose
close of
the
999 Marina
Grande
Marina
Grande
to
Marina
to the small
Pedestrian
Marina the small
Pedestrian Grande
piers.
piers.
Grande
harbour
route
harbour and
route
andclose of
the
close
of
the to the
9 Marina
Grande
Marina to
Marina
to the
the small
Grande
smallpiers. harbour
harbour and of
the
of
9 Marina9 Grande Marina Grande
piers. and the
99 Grande Marina
Grande
Grande
small
to the harbour
Marina
Marina
small
Grande
piers.
Grande
piers.
harbour of Marina
and
and
of
the
the
Grande
Grande
Belvedere
Grande Marina
MarinaPanoramic Grande
piers.
Grande and pointand
the
andof ofthe
piers.
the
Belvedere Panoramic piers.
piers. point
10 Belvedere Belvedere
Piazza view Panoramic
in aapiers.
Panoramic bigpoint point
square of
of in
10 Piazza
Belvedere view in
Panoramic piers.
big square
point ofin
10 Belvedere
Piazza viewPanoramic
in point of
10 Belvedere
10
Belvedere
Piazza
Vittoria
Vittoria
Piazza view
a
view in a
Panoramic
aPanoramic
limited
limited
in a big
a big
bigtraffic square
point
square
point
traffic square
ofin
area.
of
area. in
in
10 Belvedere
Piazza viewPanoramic
in point of
10 Belvedere
10
Vittoria
Piazza
Vittoria
Belvedere
Piazza
a
view in aaa big
limited
aPanoramic
view limited
Panoramic
in
big
bigtraffic
traffic
square
point
square
point
square
area.
of
area.
in
in
ofin
Belvedere
10 Vittoria
Piazza
Piazza
Vittoria aa
view limited
Panoramic in
limited aa big traffic
point
traffic square area.
of
area. inview in a big
10 10
10 Piazza
Vittoria
Piazza view
a
Small
view in
limited busy
inbusy big
ainbig traffic square
square
squarearea. in
in
intraffic area.
Vittoria Vittoria
Vittoria a limited
Small
square
aSmall
limited traffic
a square
traffic limitedarea.
area.in
Vittoria a limited
Small
front busy
busy
ofbusythetraffic square
traffic
square
Town area.in
in
Hall
Vittoria a limited
front
Small of the Town
square area.
Hall
in
11 Municipio
11 Municipio Small
front
Smallof busy
the
busy square
Town
square in
Hall
ina
11 Municipio Municipio front
with
Small
with
front of
green
green
of the
busy
the Town
area
square
area
Town and
and Hall
in
Halla
11 Small
front
with of busy
green the square
Town
area in
Hall
and
11 Municipio
11 Municipio Small
front
with
fountain
Small
Small
front
fountain
with
of
of
busy
green the
busy
green in the
busy
the
in
square
Town
area
the
square
Town
area and
middle.
square ina
in
Hall
Hall
middle.
and a in front of
11 Municipio
11 Municipio front
with
fountain
front
with green
of
green
of
green
the
in
the Town
area
the
Town
area andHall
middle.
andHall aa
11
11
11 Municipio
Municipio fountain
front
with
fountain
with
ofthe
green
in
the
inTown the
Town
area
the
area
middle.
and Hall
Hall
middle.
and aaa with
11 Municipio Municipio fountain
with green in the
area middle.
and
fountain
with
fountain green
green inarea
in the
areamiddle.
andandaaafountain
fountain
fountain in the the middle.middle.
fountain in in inthe themiddle.
the middle.
middle.

The questionnaire used for the soundwalk [21] is reported in Table 2. In order to control for
possible effects of sudden acoustic events at the 11 selected spots, the four groups were asked to start
the soundwalk with 10-min delays and alternately in opposite walking directions (clockwise and
Urban Sci. 2016, 1, 4 4 of 10

The questionnaire used for the soundwalk [21] is reported in Table 2. In order to control for
Urban Sci. 2017,
possible 1, 4 of sudden acoustic events at the 11 selected spots, the four groups were asked to4start
effects of 10

the soundwalk with 10-min delays and alternately in opposite walking directions (clockwise and
counter-clockwise) after spot 2, as reported in Figure 1. At each spot, participants were required to
counter-clockwise) after spot 2, as reported in Figure 1. At each spot, participants were required to
listen to the acoustic environment for a two-minute period and then fill the structured questionnaire.
listen to the acoustic environment for a two-minute period and then fill the structured questionnaire.
At the same time, the investigator in the group took a binaural recording of the acoustic environment
At the same time, the investigator in the group took a binaural recording of the acoustic environment
by means of a calibrated binaural headset (1/8 in-ear mics, Danish Pro Audio), connected to a
by means of a calibrated binaural headset (1/8 in-ear mics, Danish Pro Audio), connected to a portable
portable recorder (Edirol R44).
recorder (Edirol R44).

Figure 1. The 11
11 spots
spots selected
selected for the
the soundwalk
soundwalk with the routes followed by groups A and C (orange
arrow) and B and D (green
(green arrow).
arrow).

Table 2. The
Table 2. The questionnaire
questionnaire used
used during
during the
the soundwalk.
soundwalk. For
For each question, participants
each question, participants could
could express
express
their preference on a 10-point ordinal scale.
their preference on a 10-point ordinal scale.

ID ID Question
Question Extremes
Extremes of Scale
of the the Scale
(010)(010)
Overall, how would you describe the present surrounding sound
SQ SQ Overall, how would you describe the present Very badVery
environment? Very badVery goodgood
surrounding sound environment?
Overall to what
Overall extent
to what is the
extent present
is the presentsurrounding
surrounding soundsoundenvironment
environment
AP AP NotNot at allPerfectly
at allPerfectly
appropriate to the
appropriate to present
the presentplace?
place?
VQVQ Overall, how how
Overall, would wouldyouyoudescribe
describethethepresent
present visual environment?
visual environment? Very
Very badVery
badVery goodgood
How much does this visual environment
How much does this visual environment influence influence your soundscape
IN IN NotNot at allVery
at allVery muchmuch
assessment?
your soundscape assessment?
To what extent
To what do you
extent presently
do you presently hear
hearthe
thefollowing fivetypes
following five types of of sounds?
(Trafficsounds?
noisee.g., noisee.g.,
(Trafficcars, buses,cars, buses,
trains, airtrains,
planes;airOther Other
planes;noisee.g., sirens,
noisee.g., sirens, construction, industry, loading of goods; Sounds of
SP construction, industry, loading of goods; Sounds of individualse.g., Do not
Do not hear hear at allDominates
at allDominates completely
SP individualse.g., conversation, laughter, children at play; Crowds of
conversation, laughter,
peoplee.g., passers,children at play;
restaurants, sportsCrowds of peoplee.g.,
event, festival; Natural passers, completely
soundse.g.,
restaurants, sportssinging
event,birds, flowing
festival; water,soundse.g.,
Natural wind in the vegetation)
singing birds,
flowing Forwater,
each ofwind in the
the eight vegetation)
scales below, to what extent do you agree or
AT For eachdisagree
of thethat the scales
eight presentbelow,
surrounding
to whatsound environment
extent is . . . or disagree
do you agree Not at allCompletely
(pleasant; chaotic; vibrant; uneventful; calm; annoying; eventful; monotonous)
AT that the present surrounding sound environment is (pleasant; chaotic; Not at allCompletely
vibrant; uneventful; calm; annoying; eventful; monotonous)
3. Results
3. Results
The main results are described in the following sub-sections with the objective of illustrating
the potential
The mainbenefit
resultsthat
arethe soundscape
described in theapproach
followingand the soundwalk
sub-sections methodology
with the objective of can offer to the
illustrating
improvement of tourism management.
potential benefit that the soundscape approach and the soundwalk methodology can offer to the
improvement of tourism management.
3.1. Soundscape Appraisal between Groups
3.1. Soundscape Appraisal
The rationale between
for sorting the Groups
participants into four groups was to control for the potential time of
listening and spots order effects on soundscape
The rationale for sorting the participants appraisal,
into during
four groups was thetosoundwalk
control for session. Therefore,
the potential time
the first step of the analysis consisted of checking for statistical significant differences
of listening and spots order effects on soundscape appraisal, during the soundwalk session. between the
four groups. For this purpose, four general questions, namely SQ, AP, VQ, and IN (as
Therefore, the first step of the analysis consisted of checking for statistical significant differencesreported in
Table 2), were selected within the questionnaire. These four questions were associated to four variables:
Soundscape Quality, Appropriateness, Visual Quality, and Audio-visual influences, accordingly. A set
Urban Sci. 2016, 1, 4 5 of 10

Urban Sci. 2017,

between the 1, 4 groups. For this purpose, four general questions, namely SQ, AP, VQ, and IN
four 5 of(as
10
reported in Table 2), were selected within the questionnaire. These four questions were associated to
four variables: Soundscape Quality, Appropriateness, Visual Quality, and Audio-visual influences,
of Kruskal-Wallis H tests was performed for each of the 11 spots, separately, to determine if there were
accordingly. A set of Kruskal-Wallis H tests was performed for each of the 11 spots, separately, to
statistically significant differences between the scores of the four groups for the four ordinal dependent
determine if there were statistically significant differences between the scores of the four groups for
variables. Table 3 reports the Chi-squared (2 ) values and asymptotic significance (p) for the 44 tests
the four ordinal dependent variables. Table 3 reports the Chi-squared (2) values and asymptotic
performed (all tests had three degrees of freedom).
significance (p) for the 44 tests performed (all tests had three degrees of freedom).
Table 3. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis tests for the four variables at the 11 spots: SQ, AP, VQ, and IN, as
Table 3. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis tests for the four variables at the 11 spots: SQ, AP, VQ, and IN,
per Table 2.
as per Table 2.

SQ SQ AP
AP VQVQ IN IN
Spot No. Spot No.
2 2 p. p 2 2 pp 2
2
p p 2 2 p p
1 4.979 0.173 6.516 0.089 2.098 0.552 1.962 0.580
2 1 5.622 4.979
0.132 0.173 6.516
2.647 0.089
0.449 2.098
0.494 0.552
0.920 1.9625.2060.580 0.157
3 2 0.238 5.622
0.971 0.132 2.647
1.840 0.449
0.606 0.494
0.505 0.920
0.918 5.2063.2220.157 0.359
4 3 1.531 0.238
0.675 0.971 1.840
1.875 0.606
0.599 0.505
5.141 0.918
0.162 3.2223.0200.359 0.389
5 4 4.069 1.531
0.254 0.675 1.875
0.803 0.599
0.849 5.141
0.023 0.162
0.999 3.0203.2850.389 0.350
6 5 4.493 4.069
0.213 0.254 0.803
3.710 0.849
0.295 0.023
2.947 0.999
0.400 3.2852.6580.350 0.447
7 6 4.574 4.493
0.206 0.213 3.710
8.081 0.295
0.044 2.947
4.243 0.400
0.236 2.6582.4420.447 0.486
8 7 1.642 4.574
0.650 0.206 8.081
4.879 0.044
0.181 4.243
4.499 0.236
0.212 2.4421.3090.486 0.727
9 8 1.729 1.642
0.630 0.650 4.879
1.952 0.181
0.582 4.499
3.777 0.212
0.287 1.3096.9560.727 0.073
10 9 3.204 1.729
0.361 0.630 1.952
2.232 0.582
0.526 3.777
0.558 0.287
0.906 6.9561.6560.073 0.647
11 104.463 3.204
0.216 0.361 2.232
6.758 0.526
0.080 0.558
3.491 0.906
0.322 1.6562.2290.647 0.526
11 4.463 0.216 6.758 0.080 3.491 0.322 2.229 0.526
Results show that there was no statistical significant difference at 95% confidence level between
the assessments
Results show ofthat
the there
four groups. Thus, the significant
was no statistical data for each variableatgiven
difference by the fourlevel
95% confidence groups have
between
been pooled, as itofisthe
the assessments reasonable to assume
four groups. thatdata
Thus, the the for
timeeach
of listening
variable and
givenspots order
by the foureffects
groupsonhave
the
soundscape appraisal can be disregarded. Figure 2 shows the median values (averaged across
been pooled, as it is reasonable to assume that the time of listening and spots order effects on the the 16
participants) for the can
soundscape appraisal fourbeinvestigated
disregarded.variables (SQ, AP,
Figure 2 shows the VQ, andvalues
median IN) at the 11 spots
(averaged across of
thethe
16
soundwalk.
participants) for the four investigated variables (SQ, AP, VQ, and IN) at the 11 spots of the soundwalk.

9 3 10 4 5 6 8 11 2 1 7
10
Sound Env.
Quality SQ

8
6
4
2

10
Soundscape Appr. IN Quality VQ of Sound Env. AP
Visual Env. Influence on Visual Env. Appropriatness

8
6
4
2

10
8
6
4
2

10
8
6
4
2
0
9 3 10 4 5 6 8 11 2 1 7
Site

Figure 2. Median
Median and
and 95%
95% confidence
confidence intervals
intervals for
for the
the four
four variables
variables for
for each site (arranged in
descending order of sound environment quality appraisal
appraisal SQ).
SQ).
Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4 6 of 10

3.2. Psychoacoustic Metrics

In order to characterize the acoustic environments experienced by the participants during the
soundwalk, the sound pressure level and some psychoacoustic parameters were determined from the
binaural recordings performed at the 11 spots of the soundwalk using the ArtemiS software (v. 11,
HEAD acoustics GmbH); their mean values are reported in Table 4. Acoustic and psychoacoustic
parameters cover several aspects of basic auditory sensations. The most common are loudness,
roughness, sharpness, and fluctuation strength. Detailed information about definitions, meanings,
and applications of such parameters can be retrieved in [23]. The urban interaural level difference
(uILD2 ) was calculated by the difference in LAeq between the left and right channel of the binaural
recording [24].

Table 4. Equivalent level and psychoacoustics parameters calculated from the measurements at the
11 spots.

Urban Interaural Fluctuation

Level Loudness Roughness Sharpness
Level Difference Strength
Spots
LAeq uILD2 N R S Fls
(dB(A)) (dB) (soneGF) (asper) (acum) (vacil)
1 72.9 1.3 21.9 1.95 2.29 0.0084
2 71.2 2.5 24.5 2.31 2.39 0.0323
3 59.0 1.2 10.9 0.76 2.02 0.0247
4 63.7 0.8 14.7 1.23 2.04 0.0277
5 55.8 0.8 9.7 0.42 2.15 0.0165
6 55.1 0.5 8.6 0.41 1.77 0.0117
7 52.1 0.8 8.0 0.28 1.91 0.0076
8 57.7 0.4 9.8 0.57 1.76 0.0220
9 52.7 0.1 8.1 0.19 1.92 0.0117
10 56.1 0.7 8.6 0.42 1.92 0.0168
11 64.0 0.5 15.9 1.51 2.04 0.0177

3.3. Cluster Analysis Using Soundscape Data and Acoustic Metrics

Among the several statistical analyses of the collected data, this paper describes the results
of the hierarchical cluster analysis performed to identify groups of soundwalk spots with similar
psychoacoustic metrics and soundscape data mean values using all subjective (i.e., Table 3) and
objective (i.e., Table 4) variables. The algorithm used in this analysis was the Wards method [25],
with Euclidean distance and standardization of the variables (01). Results suggest the agglomeration
into three groups, as reported in Table 5.

Table 5. Cluster membership of the 11 spots of the soundwalk as defined through the Wards method
in the SPSS software (v.22) (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Spots Description Cluster

1 Via Correale (Hotel Carlton) 1
2 Piazza Tasso 1
3 Via S. Cesareo 37 3
4 Largo Sedil Dominova 3
5 Vico Secondo Fuoro 2
6 Via S. Cesareo 81 2
7 Via Sopra le Mura 2
8 Belvedere Marina Grande 2
9 Marina Grande 3
10 Belvedere Piazza Vittoria 3
11 Municipio 1

Figure 3 reports the sound source profiles, based on the sound source types used in the
questionnaire (Table 2, variable SP), and averaged according to the cluster membership. It can be
observed that traffic noise was dominant in locations belonging to Cluster 1. In Cluster 2 locations,
the crowd of people sounds were the least dominant, while natural sounds were the most dominant.
Urban Sci. 2016, 1, 4 7 of 10
Urban
UrbanSci. 2016,1,1,44
Sci.2017, 77of
of10
10

Finally, in Cluster 3 locations, human sounds (i.e., crowd of people, sound of individuals) were the
Finally,
most in Cluster
dominant 3 locations,
noticed sources.human sounds (i.e., crowd of people, sound of individuals) were the
Finally, in Cluster
most dominant 3 locations,
noticed human sounds (i.e., crowd of people, sound of individuals) were the
sources.
most dominant noticed sources.

Figure
Figure 3. Average
Average sound
sound sources
sources dominance
dominance profiles
profiles (variable
(variable SP
SP in
in Table
Table 2) for the three clusters of
Figure 3. Average sound sources dominance profiles (variable SP in Table 2) for the three clusters of
the
the soundwalk spots.
the soundwalk spots.
Likewise,
Likewise, the
the individual
individual response
response scores
scores for
for the
the perceptual
perceptual attributes
attributes used
used in
in the
the questionnaire
questionnaire
(Table Likewise,
2, the
variable AT) individual response
were averaged scores
averaged according for
to the
the perceptual
cluster attributes
membership used
and in the
reported questionnaire
in Figure 4.4.
(Table
(Table 2,
2,variable
variable AT)
AT) were
were averaged according
according to
to the
the cluster
cluster membership
membership and
and reported
reported in
in Figure
Figure 4.
It can
ItIt can be
be observed
observed that
that the
the locations
locations in
in Cluster
Cluster 3 reported
33reported overall
overall higher
higher scores
scores in
in the
the pleasantness
pleasantness
can
domain, be observed that
whereas locations the locations
in Cluster in Cluster
1 were the reported
the most annoying overall higher
annoying and chaotic. scores
chaotic. in the pleasantness
domain,
domain,whereas
whereaslocations
locationsin inCluster
Cluster11were
were themostmost annoyingand and chaotic.

Figure 4. Average perceptual attributes scores (variable AT in Table 2) for the three clusters of
Figure 4. Average perceptual attributes scores (variable AT in Table 2) for the three clusters of
soundwalk spots.
Figure 4. Average
soundwalk spots. perceptual attributes scores (variable AT in Table 2) for the three clusters of
soundwalk spots.
In order
In ordertotodevelop
developa model for predicting
a model the cluster
for predicting the membership, multinomial
cluster membership, logistic regression
multinomial logistic
has In
been order
performedto develop a
considering model
as for predicting
independent the
variables cluster
the six membership,
regression has been performed considering as independent variables the six acousticand
acoustic parametersmultinomial logistic
the responses
parameters and
regression
to the above has been
mentionedperformed
four considering
general questions,as independent
namely SQ, variables
AP, VQ,
the responses to the above mentioned four general questions, namely SQ, AP, VQ, and IN. the
and six
IN. acoustic parameters and
the responses
The caret
The carettopackage
the above
package [26]mentioned
available
[26] availablefour
in ingeneral
the R questions,
the software
R namely
[27] was
software SQ,applied
applied
[27] was AP, k-fold
with VQ,with
and IN.
cross validation
k-fold cross
The
(k = 10) and
validation caret
(k five
= 10) package
repetitions.[26] available
The available
and five repetitions. in the
Thedata R software
were split
available data into [27]
weretwo was
sets,
split applied
intoone used
two with
forone
sets, k-fold
usedcross
training the
for
validation (k = 10) and five repetitions. The available data were split into two
training the model and the other used for testing it. The split (70% for training and 30% for testing, sets, one used for
training the model and the other used for testing it. The split (70% for training and 30% for testing,
Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4 8 of 10

model and the other used for testing it. The split (70% for training and 30% for testing, resulting in 44
cases for the latter) was performed randomly. The results are rather promising, as can be seen by the
classification performance indices reported in Table 6.

Table 6. Classification performance indices of the developed model.

Confusion Matrix Accuracy 0.773

Reference C1 C2 C3 Cluster C1 C2 C3
Prediction Sensitivity 0.917 0.687 0.750
C1 11 0 2 Specificity 0.937 0.893 0.821
C2 1 11 2 Detection rate 0.250 0.250 0.273
C3 0 5 12 Balanced accuracy 0.927 0.790 0.786

The relative importance of variables in the model were in descending order: roughness R (100%),
loudness N (91.98%), fifth percentile of loudness N5 (75.27%), continuous equivalent sound pressure
level LAeq (65.49%), visual quality VQ (52.65%), appropriateness of sound environment to the site AP
(50.66), and so forth.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, the soundwalk method and binaural recordings were used to characterize the
soundscape of a pedestrian tourist route in Sorrento (Italy), considering 11 spots along a pre-defined
path. A cluster analysis relying on both individual and physical data was used to sort the 11 spots
into three different groups. The results showed that the spots in Cluster 1 corresponded to the louder
locations, and even if they had a moderate visual quality, their soundscape quality was low, possibly
because their acoustic environment was dominated by traffic noise. Spots in Cluster 2 were quieter and,
therefore, had a moderate soundscape quality, but they were not particularly visually attractive. Finally,
spots in Cluster 3 had moderately low sound levels and even if they were not the quietest, they had
high visual quality, and, therefore, resulted in the highest soundscape appreciation. In addition, the
spots of Cluster 3 were those where the visual components mostly affected the individual judgement
of the acoustic environment.
The relative importance of the variables for the clustering algorithm offers some insights into
potentially viable strategies for designing better acoustic environments for tourists soundscape
appreciation. The most important predictor was roughness; this parameter has often been considered
to be representative of the impression of a sounds temporal variation [24], and while rougher
acoustic environments are generally associated with lower soundscape quality (e.g., [28,29]), this
indicator might be useful to discriminate between calm and vibrant soundscapes, representing a first
parameter to control for when designing the tourist experience. Likewise, the loudness indicators play
a significant role, endorsing the fact that an important criterion for classifying urban environments is
whether they are quiet or loud. Overall, these findings confirm that objective acoustic parameters
are very important to categorize urban environments from a soundscape quality perspective.
Interestingly, the most important subjective parameter for the clustering algorithm was visual
quality (VQ). A previous study [18] showed that the assessment of this dimension is likely to
differ significantly between tourists and residents, so urban planners and designers should aim
at implementing different strategies for different group of users within a broader soundscape
management framework.
Taken together, the results of this survey show that besides the acoustics aspects of spots, several
other aspects (visual, social, urban, etc.) of the built environment are relevant for tourists perceptual
construct of soundscape, particularly in sites with high landscape values, such as Sorrento. Overall,
this suggests that soundscape could be a viable methodology to inform the management and design of
destinations with high touristic potential.
Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4 9 of 10

Acknowledgments: This research received funding through the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the
European Unions 7th Framework Programme FP7/20072013 under Research Executive Agency grant agreement
No. 290110, SONORUS Urban Sound Planner. The authors are grateful to the organizers of the Soundscape
summer school in Sorrento (April 2015), the participants of the soundwalks, and to Dr Virginia Puyana Romero
for her support during data collection.
Author Contributions: Francesco Aletta, Giovanni Brambilla, Luigi Maffei, and Massimiliano Masullo conceived
and designed the experiments and performed the experiments; Francesco Aletta and Giovanni Brambilla analyzed
the data. All the authors wrote and revised the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Schafer, R.M. The Tuning of the World; Knopf: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
2. Truax, B. Handbook for Acoustic Ecology; Cambridge Street Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
3. International Organization for Standardization. AcousticsSoundscapePart. 1: Definition and Conceptual
Framework; ISO 12913-1:2014; ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2014.
4. Brown, A.L.; Kang, J.; Gjestland, T. Towards standardization in soundscape preference assessment.
Appl. Acoust. 2011, 72, 387392. [CrossRef]
5. Brown, L.A. A Review of Progress in Soundscapes and an Approach to Soundscape Planning. Int. J.
Acoust. Vib. 2012, 17, 7381. [CrossRef]
6. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention; European Treaty Series: Florence, Italy, 2000.
7. Cohen, E. A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 1979, 13, 179201. [CrossRef]
8. Cohen, E. Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 1835. [CrossRef]
9. Kirillova, K.; Fu, X.; Lehto, X.; Cai, L. What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic
judgment. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 282293. [CrossRef]
10. Maffei, L.; Brambilla, G.; Di Gabriele, M. Soundscape as Part of the Cultural and Natural Heritage.
In Soundscape and the Built Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; Chapter 9; pp. 215242.
11. Surez, R.; Alonso, A.; Sendra, J.J. Intangible cultural heritage: The sound of the Romanesque cathedral of
Santiago de Compostela. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 15, 239243. [CrossRef]
12. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Convention for the Safeguarding
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; Secretariat of the United Nations: Paris, France, 2003.
13. Yamada, Y. Soundscape-based forest planning for recreational and therapeutic activities. Urban For.
Urban Green. 2006, 5, 131139. [CrossRef]
14. Dumyahn, S.L.; Pijanowski, B.C. Beyond noise mitigation: Managing soundscapes as common-pool resources.
Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 13111326. [CrossRef]
15. Schwarz, O. What should nature sound like? Techniques of engagement with nature sites and sonic
preferences of Israeli visitors. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 42, 382401. [CrossRef]
16. Votsi, N.P.; Mazaris, A.D.; Kallimanis, A.S.; Pantis, J.D. Natural quiet: An additional feature reflecting green
tourism development in conservation areas of Greece. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 11, 1017. [CrossRef]
17. Liu, A.; Liu, F.; Deng, Z.; Chen, W. Relationship between soundscape and historical-cultural elements
of Historical Areas in Beijing: A case study of Qianmen Avenue. In Proceedings of the Internoise 2014
Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 1619 November 2014.
18. Puyana Romero, V.; Brambilla, G.; Di Gabriele, M.; Gallo, V.; Maffei, L. The influence of the soundscape on
the tourists environmental quality perception. In Proceedings of the Euronoise 2015 Conference, Maastricht,
The Netherlands, 31 May3 June 2015.
19. Semidor, C. Listening to a city with the soundwalk method. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2006, 92, 959964.
20. Jeon, J.Y.; Hong, J.Y.; Lee, P.J. Soundwalk approach to identify urban soundscapes individually. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 2013, 134, 803812. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Aletta, F.; Kang, J. Soundscape approach integrating noise mapping techniques: A case study in Brighton,
UK. Noise Mapp. 2015, 2, 112. [CrossRef]
22. Brambilla, G.; Masullo, M.; Sorrentino, F.; Pascale, A. La passeggiata sonora ad AlgheroThe soundwalk at
Alghero. Rivista Italiana di Acustica 2016, 40, 5262. (In Italian)
23. Fastl, H.; Zwicker, E. PsychoacousticsFacts and Models; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1990.
Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 4 10 of 10

24. Rychtrikov, M.; Vermeir, G. Soundscape categorization on the basis of objective acoustical parameters.
Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 240247. [CrossRef]
25. Ward, J.H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963, 58, 236244.
[CrossRef]
26. Kuhn, M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 2008, 28, 126. [CrossRef]
27. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for
Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2008.
28. Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Fuda, S.; Astolfi, A. The effect of walking sounds from different walked-on materials on
the soundscape of urban parks. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. 2016, 24, 165175. [CrossRef]
29. Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Astolfi, A.; Fuda, S. Differences in soundscape appreciation of walking sounds from
different footpath materials in urban parks. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 367376. [CrossRef]

2016 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/).