Urban Studies 2016, Vol. 53(1) 173–192 Making operative ... Stud-2016-Fong-173-92.pdf · Murray Schafer’s soundscapes typology: A qualitative and comparative analysis of noise

Article

Urban Studies2016, Vol. 53(1) 173–192� Urban Studies Journal Limited 2014Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0042098014562333usj.sagepub.com

Making operative concepts fromMurray Schafer’s soundscapestypology: A qualitative andcomparative analysis of noisepollution in Bangkok, Thailand andLos Angeles, California

Jack FongCalifornia State Polytechnic University, USA

AbstractEmploying components of Murray Schafer’s soundscape typology from his inimitable 1977 work,The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World, my exploratory study qualita-tively and comparatively explores the sonic landscape and noise pollution ‘texture’ of Bangkok,Thailand and Los Angeles, California. By employing Schafer’s soundscape concepts to explain howpeople subjectively accommodate and generate the noises and sounds of cities, I hope to movebeyond the conventional quantitative measurements of sound through decibels. The study arguesthat urban sociology’s blind spot is that qualitative examinations of the sonic environment havenot been undertaken. By making operative Schafer’s soundscape concepts I make the preliminaryargument that a qualitative understanding of urban noise reveals social structure insofar as cul-tural accommodations of noise, urban configurations of a city and degrees of development of acity are concerned.

KeywordsBangkok, Los Angeles, noise pollution, qualitative, parks, soundscape

Received June 2014; accepted October 2014

This article explores the qualitative differ-ences in noise pollution between Bangkok,Thailand and Los Angeles, USA in hopes ofmaking visible the different attributes oftheir sonic environments. Although mostpeople assume that noise pollution elicits thesame annoyance, this study explores socialfactors that influence urban residents totolerate certain types of noise in contextswhere there are varying degrees of urban

development and urban density. This under-taking is important because one of the mostneglected areas of urban sociology is thestudy of noise pollution. The key reason for

Corresponding author:

Jack Fong, Department of Psychology and Sociology,

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 W.

Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768, USA.

Email: [email protected]

by guest on December 16, 2015usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://usj.sagepub.com/

this omission is that the experience of noisepollution is primarily derived from localisedexperiences. This experiential attribute ofnoise pollution sets it apart from air pollu-tion, for example, since air pollution has thecapacity to affect larger populated areas,allowing the problem to be more clearlyarticulated in a regional, if not national dis-course. Nevertheless, the World HealthOrganization (WHO) cites noise pollution asthe ‘third most hazardous environmentaltype of pollution, preceded only by air .and water pollution (Khilman, 2004; Zanninet al., 2006). Another reason is that soundstend to ensconce themselves in our wakefulmoments in inconspicuous ways ‘until theirsocial importance’ can be questioned(Schafer, 1977: 152). My research thus aimsto bring into the discourse a variety ofimportant social observations on the ‘tex-ture’ of noise pollution as it frames the livesof urban residents in Bangkok and LosAngeles.

Rather than adopt a purely positivist andtechnical approach toward urban noise, Ihope to employ evocative imagery and proseto contrast the soundscapes of the two cities.Our sense of hearing – one that is the last toshut down before we enter sleep and the firstto signal us toward wakefulness – is almostalways immersed in what acoustic ecologistand music composer Murray Schafer (1977)termed as soundscapes, introduced to us inhis seminal work The Soundscape (1977).The soundscape consists of ‘events heard butnot seen’ (Schafer, 1977: 8), events that can-not be inhaled or tasted (Hiatt, 2010). Truax(1978) explains the soundscape as an envi-ronment of sound beyond what Schaferterms as our ‘eye culture’. For Thompson(2002), the soundscape is ‘simultaneously aphysical environment and a way of perceiv-ing that environment; it is both a world anda culture constructed to make sense of thatworld’, exhibiting attributes that have ‘moreto do with civilization than with nature .

constantly under construction and .change’ (2002: 1–2). Without ignoring thepositivist contributions to urban noiseresearch in the literature, we will need to gobeyond them through descriptive text thataims to, on an exploratory basis, capturewhat can be heard at our research sites inBangkok and Los Angeles. I will then makecautious urban sociological extrapolationson how different cultural orientations relateto different sounds in their respective cities.

Schafer’s concept of the soundscape isuseful because he clearly outlines how his-torical and sociological developmentschange the context of sound environmentsand humanity’s contextual relationship tothem. He convincingly makes visible human-ity’s complex relationship to sound from pri-mordial and agrarian eras where naturalsoundscapes provided the sonic frameworkfor life, to that of the industrial era wheremechanised mass-scale production soundsproliferated upon this terrain. In the processof extracting resources from the land, theindustrial era also contextualised people intospecialised soundscapes that administeredsuch activities. This discernment by Schafersynchronises with how the discipline ofsociology was born and found disciplinarytraction because of the discontents of theindustrial era, one which sired the iterationof cities we are familiar with today. The clas-sical ‘greats’ of sociology, from EmileDurkheim to Max Weber to FerdinandTonnies, all saw a different society emergefrom the Industrial Revolution. Schafer’stypology thus adds to this period by polemi-cally noting how a different soundscape –the noisiest on record – was also borne withthe Industrial Revolution.

Review of literature

Adams et al. concede that Schafer’s concep-tualisation of the soundscape was ‘ahead ofits time’ (2006: 2387). Moreover,

174 Urban Studies 53(1)



understanding soundscapes is an ‘existentialnecessity’ given their importance for our‘wellbeing’ (Raimbault and Dubois, 2005:342) even though soundscapes of manyurban environments convey meaning, moodand context that are not immediately appar-ent. Decades since the release of Schafer’swork, the need to have a more social-, con-text- and culturally based understanding ofnoise continues to be pitched by many scho-lars (Bjork, 1994; Genuit, 1999; Raimbaultand Dubois, 2005). Cognitive and psycholo-gical approaches already exist to reveal howsoundscapes can be therapeutic and restora-tive, affecting our wellbeing (Dubois et al.,2006; Payne, 2011).

Schafer’s soundscape typology is consti-tuted by three important sonic concepts:keynote sounds, signal sounds and sound-marks (1977: 9–10). Keynote sounds arebackground sounds that do not have to belistened to consciously. They are ubiquitousand taken for granted. The most familiarurban keynote sound is the white noise orhum generated by moving vehicles on roadsand highways. For Schafer, the source ofthis keynote sound is the combustion engine,one that provided the ‘fundamental soundof contemporary civilization’ (1977: 82).However, what constitutes keynote soundshave changed over different eras. Schaferhumorously imparts to us the bane of 19thcentury philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:the cracking of whips on horse drawn car-riages ‘as making a peaceful life impossible’,a sound which ‘which paralyzes the brain .and murders thought’ (cited in Schafer,1977: 62).

Signal sounds are those consciously andattentively listened to by the recipient of thesounds. However, Schafer notes that for lis-teners ‘any sound . listened to consciously. can become . a signal’ depending on thesensibilities of the listeners who ‘interpretthem’ (1977: 10). Signal sounds in the urbancontext tend to serve as localised warning

sounds that listeners often heed. Examplesof such sounds include an ambulance’s siren,fire alarms, bells at railroad crossings andhonks from motor vehicles. Soundmarks – asonic equivalent of the landmark – aresounds unique to a particular community orsetting. For Schafer, some communitiescherish their particular soundmark, as inhearing the tolling of bells from a church.Schafer, however, most appreciates thosesoundmarks emanating from the context ofthe natural environment, one that is antipo-dal to the cacophony exhibited by the urbankeynote soundscape: waves quietly lapping aparticular cove of a beach, the flowing ofstreams or the chirps of crickets and particu-lar birds. For Schafer, urban residents feelsuch soundmarks ‘deserve to be protected,for soundmarks make the acoustic life of thecommunity unique’ (1977: 10), a sentimentthat still holds true decades later in findingsby Dubois et al. (2006), Guastavino (2006)and Payne (2011).

Schafer insightfully noted that prior tothe industrial era the human condition wasprimarily framed by natural, ecosystemicsounds. Some natural noises had a dramaticpresence on the primordial soundscape –thunder, crashing waves, powerful winds –although these were only intermittentlyheard because they manifested through sea-sonal cycles. Most natural sounds of thesoundscape allowed humans to acclimate tothem as keynote sounds. Examples in thiscategory include, crickets chirping on aprairie, a summer evening with light winds,ocean waves or the calls of primates in a tro-pical rain forest. Signal sounds might bethose that come from predators such asbears, tigers or wolves, while soundmarksmight be the warm hiss of a familiar streamsignalling to the sojourner that one hasreturned home. Only recently was this eco-systemic soundscape colonised by the tech-nological outputs of the industrial era whenchainsaws, motor vehicles, trains, dynamite

Fong 175



and jackhammers mutilated the soundscape,contributing to noise pollution.

It is well known that noise pollution oftenhas negative effects on urban inhabitants,generating ‘annoyance, sleep disturbance’ aswell as affecting ‘physical and mental health’(Botteldooren et al., 2004: 361). Globalresearch demonstrates how traffic noisecauses an elevation in blood pressure, reduc-tion in memory recall, diminished capacityfor concentration, increased stress anddecrease in emotional wellbeing (Babisch etal., 2005; Bluhm et al., 2007; Gidlof-Gunnarsson and Ohrstrom, 2007; Ohrstrom,2004). Noise pollution also interrupts speechand daily activities (Banerjee et al., 2009).Loud noises also greatly increase one’s riskof having heart problems (Babisch et al.,1999; Hiatt, 2010). In Brazil, similar findingsemerged for population samples exposed tonoise (Zannin et al., 2002). Evans et al.(2001) found in their sample of Austrianchildren that urban noise disrupted theirconcentration and elevated their stress levels.In the USA, the Occupational Safety andHealth Agency (OSHA) has determined thatnoise at 95 decibels (dB) – approximatelythe loudness of a power lawn mower – formore than 4 h per day will cause permanenthearing damage in the long term.

The most ubiquitous types of noise pollu-tion in urban keynote soundscapes are thenoises generated by aircraft, trains andmotor vehicles of all types. These elementsplying our transport infrastructure generatemuch of what we associate with as keynotesounds in today’s urban soundscape.

However, because the research sites inBangkok and Los Angeles were not near air-ports or docks, only listening and recordingsessions from roads and their surroundingswere employed to ascertain how urban com-munities coexist within their accompanyingkeynote, signal and soundmark sounds-capes. That said, road noise remains the

most significant source of environmentalannoyance (Ising and Kruppa, 2004), with‘heavy goods vehicles’ deemed most annoy-ing (Chakraborty et al., 1998). For Yilmazand Hocanli, highways are the ‘noisiest ofall . because of their intensity and continu-ity’ (2006: 103). In big cities the most com-mon keynote soundscape is constituted bytraffic noise and its domination of the acous-tic environment (Botteldooren et al., 2004;Hogan, 1973; Ozer et al., 2008). It is not sur-prising that Bangkok roadside workersexposed to high levels of traffic noise sufferfrom some degree of hearing impairment(Leong and Laortanakul, 2003).

Noise generated by vehicles can also beamplified by infrastructural density resultingfrom poor urban planning. In the Indianindustrial city of Asansol, vehicles movethrough denser streets that have not beenexpanded to keep pace with traffic. The moredensely configured buildings amplify sound.Consequently, large trucks on such streetshonk more, inciting other automotive vehiclesto honk back in return (Banerjee et al., 2009:39). Noise levels also increase with density oftraffic since accelerating vehicles during trafficcongestion are always at their noisiest operat-ing state (Dursun et al., 2006; Hogan, 1973).

In spite of the findings on mechanisednoises of industry, globally, most acousticecologists still give pride of place to quanti-tatively measuring noise pollution. Thismethod overlooks how city dwellers subjec-tively accommodate urban noise. Raimbaultand Dubois note how many city noise regu-lations are ‘insufficient as they mainly aim at. physical measurements, neglecting humanexperiences of noises’ (2005: 340). They addhow sound quality ‘cannot be determined bya simple measurement . Human perceptionof noise . relies on the meaning of soundsthat is in relation to the sources . and thepeople who are exposed to it’ (Raimbaultand Dubois, 2005: 340).




Methodology

Comparative analyses of Bangkok and LosAngeles’ soundscapes were undertaken for avariety of reasons. The primary reason isbecause of their chronologically close, albeitunrelated historical developments. LosAngeles was established as a ‘City of Angels’in 1781 by the Spanish governor ofCalifornia, Felipe de Neve, when the areawas still under the Spanish colonial adminis-tration of Mexico. Across the Pacific, oneyear later, Bangkok – what Thais informallyrefer to as Krung Thep, which coincidentallyalso means a ‘City of Angels’– was promul-gated as the new capital of Siam by Thaiswho survived Burma’s 1767 devastation ofthe nation’s previous capital of Ayutthaya.Today, both cities are large iconic globalmegacities, that is, cities that exceed 10 mil-lion in population. The BangkokMetropolitan Region (which includes thefive adjacent provinces of Nakhon Pathom,Pathum Thani, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakanand Samut Sakhon) contains over 14 millionpeople (Fong, 2013). The Greater LosAngeles Area (which includes Los Angeles,Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside andVentura counties) was estimated by the USCensus in 2010 to contain over 17 millioninhabitants.

Both multicultural cities have a thrivingnightlife, a large tourist economy anddiverse migrant populations. Bangkok’sgridlock traffic is also as world infamous asis Los Angeles’. Both cities exhibit the unde-sirable attribute lamented by those engagedin soundscape studies in that ‘road trafficnoise often dominates the acoustic environ-ment’ (Botteldooren et al., 2004: 361). Thesoundscapes of both cities are punctured bysounds from machines of all kinds, fromengines of motor vehicles to the impact ofsteel-on-steel heard in construction sounds,from notes emanating from depressingATM machine buttons, to the Doppler

Effect of rail or public transport speedingby, all of which reinforce Schafer’s claimthat our industrial era is consistently theloudest on record. Another important rea-son for the selection of Bangkok and LosAngeles for comparative purposes is becauseyour author was raised in Bangkok andmigrated to Los Angeles in 1980. As such,an intimate familiarity of both urban con-texts has allowed for the identification ofkey urban pockets ideal for capturing soundrecordings.

A Sony ICD BX800 digital soundrecorder and a Sony HDR-CX digital cam-era were employed to capture sound andvisual imagery, respectively. For each city,what Schafer termed as ‘earwitnessing’took place on Wednesdays, Thursdays,Saturdays and Sundays for one month.Each listening and recording session (LRS)lasted one hour. The LRSs for Bangkoktook place during July 2013 while those forLos Angeles took place during May 2014.For each city, 16 hours of sound recordingswere conducted. LRSs took place outdoorsten feet from the street. At the end of thehour, your author took informal ‘sound-walks’ in the area – another Schaferianterm – so as to earwitness more acoustictexture.

A randomly sampled LRS time of12:00 h was derived from a time spreadbetween 08:00 h and 18:00 h. Two intersec-tions were selected for each city and thesewere not randomly sampled. The intersec-tions were selected for their popularity ornotoriety among the local population. InLos Angeles County, the first intersection(Figure 1) is located in the city of Encino atVentura Boulevard and Paso RoblesAvenue, adjacent to Encino Park (GPScoordinates: 34.159551, 2118.502175) (cutand paste coordinates onto Google Maps tosee location and interactive street view). Thesecond intersection (Figure 2) is located inthe City of Industry at Fullerton Road and

Fong 177



Gale Avenue (GPS coordinates: 33.996204,2117.905037). In downtown Bangkok, thefirst intersection (Figure 3) is located atSilom Road and Rama IV Road, adjacentto Lumpini Park (GPS coordinates:13.730469, 100.537050). The second intersec-tion (Figure 4) is located at Rama I Roadand Phayathai Road (GPS coordinates:13.745877, 100.530502).

Soundscapes of Los Angeles

Keynote sounds of Los Angeles

As is the case with major urban centres, LosAngeles’ keynote soundscape is defined bymotor vehicles of all types. In our area ofbeing an earwitness, the most commonmotor vehicle is that of the sedan – notunlike Bangkok’s vehicular keynote

Figure 1. Ventura Boulevard and Paso Robles Avenue, facing northwest into Encino Park, a source ofsoundmarks for the area.Source: Google Maps, 2014.

Figure 2. Fullerton Road and Gale Avenue, facing southeast.Source: Google Maps, 2014.




soundscape. Cars in the Los Angeles areaexhibit diversity in sound, however. LosAngeles’ car culture is dynamic and automo-tive enthusiasts seek attention by installinglouder aftermarket exhausts even though‘there is a consensus that road traffic noisecauses annoyance’ (De Coensel et al., 2005:176). The loud and ‘sporty’ soundingexhausts presumably enhance the image of

the automobile. Many other types of motorvehicles such as large trucks, sport utilityvehicles (SUVs) and motorcycles exhibit thiskind modification. In Los Angeles, loudexhausts installed on automobiles thusbecome an egocentric expression of power.Noticeable horsepower gains from thesetypes of exhausts are an incentive for suchpractices to continue.

Figure 3. Silom Road and Rama IV Road, facing northeast into Lumpini Park, a source of soundmarks forthe area.Source: Google Maps, 2014.

Figure 4. Rama I Road and Phayathai Road, facing northeast.Source: Google Maps, 2014.

Fong 179



The loudest motor vehicle heard at theLRS sites was generated from the V-Twinengines often seen in Harley-Davidson-typemotorcycles. Although these motorcycles arenot large vehicles per se, the flatulent stac-cato sounds (abruptly disconnected yet repe-titive sounds) generated by thesemotorcycles were painful to hear, exacer-bated by how they often set off car alarmsthat sounded for 20 seconds or more in themotorcycles’ wake. These motorcycles nega-tively affect passersby who have to hearthem, as evinced by how these individualsoften cover their ears and/or exhibit con-torted facial expressions. Sport bikes withexhausts appear to generate the sameresponse, as individuals would halt theirconversation, fully aware of the futility intalking over the approaching motorcycles.The sport bikes had engine displacements of500 cc and higher, generating a non-stac-cato, non-flatulent sound distinctly differentthan motorcycles with V-Twin engines. Thesport bike’s ability to operate at higher revo-lutions per minute (RPM) makes theirengine sound higher-pitched. When thesemotorcycles have modified exhausts, thehigher-pitched sound is also much louder(see Figure 5).

Although cars can also be loud, most donot approach the loudness of the enginesheard from V-Twin motorcycles or sportbikes. Exceptions can be heard in the fewexotic cars earwitnessed. Ferraris andLamborghinis were intermittently heard andspotted. These automobiles were louder intheir non-modified version than familysedans, but their visual appeal and symbo-lism of how their owners have higher dispo-sable incomes seem to have temperedpassersby’s negative reactions to them. Onthe famous Ventura Boulevard, riders anddrivers aware of their capacity to stand out,thus accelerate needlessly in hopes of attract-ing attention with their sonic power.

Loud delivery trucks added to the key-note soundscape in our area, especially onresidential roads. In need of being efficientin their delivery schedules, such trucks per-formed hard accelerations whenever andwherever it was possible for the driver to doso. Public buses also contribute to the key-note soundscape since those observed at ourLRS sites operate combustion engines.Along with the V-Twin engine sounds, semi-trailer trucks also projected loud enginenoises. Many trucks were easily discernedbecause they employed engine braking (often

Figure 5. The noticeably larger motorcycles found in Los Angeles. Photo by author, 2014.




incorrectly referred to as ‘jake’ braking), asecondary system to slow the vehicle downabruptly should it be travelling too fast.Using an engine braking system generates aviolently gurgling staccato sound. Althoughmost often heard on heavily ladened trucksdescending a steep downgrade, I was able tohear a few occurrences at our second LRSsite in the City of Industry, an area fre-quently used by semi-trailer trucks to trans-port goods.

The phenomenon of honking is culturallyspecific as well. At our Los Angeles LRS ses-sion sites, the honks that were heard primar-ily surfaced during signal stops when drivers,usually in the second position trailing a car,had to audibly notify unsuspecting driversahead of them that the signal had turnedgreen. These honks were short in duration –a quick ‘beep’ of the horn sufficed to promptthe driver at the front of the intersection toaccelerate. However, Los Angeles’ culture isalso adept at egocentric honking. Honks inthis category are unnecessarily longer thanusual, employed to last as long as a vitriolicsentence might last. These types of honks areused on drivers that weave between lanes in amanner that offends drivers in adjacent lanes.At our Los Angeles LRS sites, honking oftendid not have only a practical function as asignal sound as it was also a metaphor for anexpletive-filled message conveyed by theslighted driver.

Contributing to the urban soundscapewere noises from hand-held machines. Mostcommon among these were those employedto manicure gardens. The motors of hedgetrimmers were commonly heard as gardenersemployed them to shape plants. Closelyrelated to this device are the gas-poweredleaf blowers, which, although ensuring effi-ciency in blowing leafage to its appropriateareas for collection, are very loud. One oftensees its operator wearing earmuffs so as tominimise its impact on the ears. Leaf blowershave incited annoyance to the point that

many cities in the USA actually have banson them. For example, in Santa Monica,California, the use of leaf blowers by individ-uals and landscape companies is illegal underS.M.M.C. 4.08.270. Less well-known is thatthe iconic Californian cities of Beverly Hillsand Carmel had bans in place by the late1970s. Indeed, 32 Californian cities havebanned the operation of leaf blowers of somevariation, and/or have restrictions on whenthey can be operated. Cities in Colorado,Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,Massachusetts and New York all have sta-tutes in one form or another against leafblower use (Consumer Reports Magazine,2010).

The discussion thus far highlights the ubi-quity of mechanised sounds and its domina-tion of Los Angeles’ soundscape. In many ofSchafer’s transnational observations he con-cludes that ‘technological sounds arestrongly disliked in technologically advancedcountries’ (1977: 147). In this context,Schafer is critical of detractors who do notsee the need for noise regulation: ‘Politiciansand other opponents argue that we representa minority, citing the cause of the mechanicwho enjoys a good motor or the pilot whoenjoys listening to aircraft. But there can beno doubt that such attitudes form a smallminority’ (1977: 147).

Signal sounds of Los Angeles

In Los Angeles, signal sounds primarily ori-ginate from fire trucks, law enforcementvehicles and ambulance sirens. Insofar aslaw enforcement vehicles are concerned, onecan also hear the voice of the police officerthrough an onboard speaker that announcesto non-cooperative drivers to stop their vehi-cle. Helicopters are also rather frequent con-tributors to Los Angeles’ signal sounds. Anynative of Los Angeles is aware that when ahelicopter flies low the staccato sound gener-ated from the spinning blades usually signals

Fong 181



that (1) law enforcement is employing thehelicopter to monitor a developing crime sit-uation and/or (2) helicopters of televisionchannels in the Greater Los Angeles areaare also monitoring the development.

It should be noted that vehicles with mod-ified exhausts also act as signal sounds forsome of the population. Cars that were loudin the fast lane often prompted more conser-vative drivers to switch to the slower lane sothat the former could pass. Families at parkswill certainly monitor their children, doubt-ing the motives of cars or motorcycles withloud exhausts as they assumed the operatorwill be reckless in the use of the vehicle andthus a danger to nearby pedestrians.

Quite unique to the American urbansoundscape is the tendency for some driversto play their music exceptionally loud, fre-quently with the windows of the automobilelowered. This is made possible by the instal-lation of aftermarket amplifiers and sub-woofers in the automobile. During LRSswhere such cars were heard, the vast major-ity of music employed had very loud bassfrequencies. The prominence of the bass hascaused people to be vigilant of such driversalso. Families at Encino Park were alertwhen these types of automobiles passed by.When automobiles with windows rolleddown are positioned next to the offendingdriver because of congested traffic, slighteddrivers would roll up their windows in disap-proval to what Schafer describes as ‘soundimperialism’, since a person ‘with a loud-speaker is more imperialistic . because hecan dominate more acoustic space’ (1977:77). When combined with a culture thatencourages individualism, blaring loudmusic from automobiles serves to accent theimportance of the driving poseur. The loudmusic from such cars has made them thebiggest target for noise restrictions in theUSA, overtaking the notorious leaf blower(Jones, 2004). In many American cities, ifloud music emanating from an automobile

is heard by a police officer within a pre-scribed distance the driver will be cited.

Soundscapes of Bangkok

Keynote sounds of Bangkok

Keynote sounds of Bangkok exhibit muchsonic diversity insofar as automotive outputis concerned. The loudest noise in the city’skeynote soundscape stems from the busesused in public transportation. Many of thebuses have outdated diesel engines that out-putted a flatulent staccato sound indicativeof their aged condition and poorly main-tained status. Although the bus system inBangkok includes high quality vehicles oftenthese vehicles must share the road withdilapidated buses. Many of the loudest auto-motive sounds also stem from delivery trucksthat deliver goods to the city.

Unlike Los Angeles, small motorcycles ofapproximately 250 cc displacement areheard everywhere in Bangkok. They emit avery unique keynote sound that is virtuallyunheard of in Los Angeles, or much of theUSA for that matter, since most Americanriders prefer large motorcycles for a roman-ticised and visceral, not pragmatic or func-tional riding experience. The engines ofthese motorcycles wail in a manner thatclosely approximates the sound of a chain-saw. These smaller displacement motorcyclesare ubiquitous not only in Bangkok, but inmuch of Asia.

One reason for the popularity of suchmotorcycles is that riders are fully aware oftheir capacity to outmaneuver gridlock traf-fic, which they audaciously do so at theirown peril as they meander in and out oftight spaces to position themselves at thefront of the intersection (see Figure 6). Oncethe traffic signal turns green, a mass accel-eration of this group of motor vehicles takesplace, generating a loud and visceral wail.This wail is followed by the comparativelyquieter white noise of cars accelerating,




followed by the buses and the belching oftheir large engines. Another reason for thepreferences of these motorcycles is that theyare much more affordable to the workingclasses of a society with more pronouncedinequalities than that of Los Angeles.Finally, riders appreciate how such motor-cycles are easier to park in a city notoriousfor its parking scarcity.

Small displacement motorcycles are alsofrequently heard on residential streets. InBangkok, these residential streets – alsoknown as sois– are usually very narrow,often winding in a labyrinthine manneraway from the arterial roads where automo-biles, public transportation and taxis usuallyroam. Thus, motorcycle taxis are ubiquitousat the front of these sois. A popular soi willhave a small frontal area where a dozen ormore of these motorcycle taxis park, theirriders waiting to take those without a carinto the interior of the sois. Furthermore,postal deliveries in Bangkok depend solelyon these motorcycles because of their abilityto meander in and out of small sois.Whereas the keynote soundscape of thearterial roads includes a cacophony of

sounds from different types of motor vehi-cles, small displacement motorcycles domi-nate the sonic landscape of the soi interior.

Another uniquely identifiable keynotecomponent in the soundscape of Bangkokstems from the city’s famous three-wheeledauto rickshaws, otherwise known as a tuktuk (an onomatopoeic spelling). Common indeveloping countries, the tuk tuk is alterna-tively referred to by Thais as sam lor (mean-ing ‘three wheels’). These quasi open-airedvehicles function as taxis in the capital andare common in many cities of Asia’s develop-ing countries. Unlike the violent chainsawsound generated by the small displacementmotorcycles, the exhaust of tuk tuks has arounded and less crisp sound but is nonethe-less very loud.

Overall, cars in Bangkok exhibit a quietersonic expression. Unlike Los Angeles’ LRSsites where modified exhausts are commonlyheard on many cars, the vast majority ofdrivers do not undertake such a modificationin Bangkok. Additionally, as a result of thehours when the LRSs took place, there wasoften much traffic that prevented automo-biles from travelling approximately more

Figure 6. Small 250 cc motorcycles in Bangkok traffic.Source: ‘Scooters Bangkok Nana’ by Khaosaming from Wiki-Commons (2006).

Fong 183



than 40 mph (64 kph). Few people realisethat even if there is a ubiquity of automo-biles in an urban setting, its contribution to acacophonous soundscape is minimised if thevehicles travel less than 35 mph (56 kph).However, above this speed loud noise fromautomobiles will be generated from ‘aerody-namic friction and the tire surface interface. [and] if an ideal noiseless engine could bedesigned, very little benefit would be rea-lized’ if vehicle speeds ‘are in excess of35 mph’ (Hogan, 1973: 388). Below suchspeeds the sounds of the engine are heardinstead. Given that in Bangkok most carsare not frequently amplified by any kind ofmodified exhaust and travelled relativelyslowly during the LRSs, they thus have asurprisingly subdued presence on the city’skeynote soundscape.

Additionally, during LRSs in Bangkok,your author did not hear loud bass musicemanating from cars. This is a completelyopposite scenario from the keynote sounds-cape of Los Angeles where drivers imposemusic upon the community’s soundscape.This is not to say that music is never heardfrom automobiles. The intense heat andhumidity of Southeast Asia, however, meansthat music is enjoyed when the driver has

the windows rolled up to keep out pollutionand to contain air conditioning within thecar, thus reducing the loudness of music abystander hears.

Finally, the white noise generated by thecity’s elevated rapid transit system, theBangkok Mass Transit System (BTS), canbe heard if there is a brief lull in automobileand motorcycle engines’ domination of thesoundscape. Since the trains operate on elec-tric power, they are a relatively quiet pres-ence in keynote soundscape of Bangkok.Further adding to the quietness of the trainsare its elevated tracks that are confinedwithin thick concrete walls, containing thesounds of the BTS into a narrow channel inways that prevent sonic ‘leakage’ onto thestreets below (see Figure 7). However, envi-ronmental sensibilities may also fosteramong Bangkokians a more charitable viewtoward tram and railway noises. Thesenoises are ‘better accepted than private vehi-cles’ (Dubois et al., 2006: 870) because theyare considered ‘less harmful for the environ-ment’ (Guastavino, 2006: 949). This sonicaltruism is not extended to noise from buses,however, which are perceived as ‘potentiallymore dangerous . for individuals and forthe environment’ (Guastavino, 2006: 949).

Figure 7. The BTS Skytrain with walls that contain the rail sound. Photo by author, 2014.




A minimal presence in the keynotesoundscape of Bangkok is the sounds offood vendors calling out to patrons that con-gregate at outdoor dining areas. Engaging insoundwalks around the vicinity of the inter-section at Silom Road and Rama IV Road,the first LRS site, one invariably encountersthese vendors tucked away in the shadeoffered by the highway overpass. Many oftheir patrons sit on plastic stools enjoyingnoodles, fried snacks and/or drinks made bystreet vendors. These vendors set up make-shift dining areas precariously close to thestreet. Providing shade from the tropicalsun, they offer a brief respite for thoseBangkokians that desire affordable food.During peak hours, food vendors frequentlycall out to passersby to buy their foodstuffs(see Figure 8).

Occasionally, passersby in Bangkok willcome across individuals singing lookthungmusic, a musical genre often associated withpeople from the rural hinterland ofThailand’s northeast, a region convention-ally referred to as Isan by Thais. These sing-ers are often maimed and/or blind. Theyperform on sidewalks, singing songs with

melodies provided by a karaoke machine ortheir band, hoping to collect money frompassersby. Thai passersby usually accepttheir presence compassionately and knowthat they are trying to eke out a living.During lunch breaks office workers taken bypersonal matters sit outside and soak up theballads. Lookthung vocalists sing of hopeand hopelessness, of dreams and despair, ofbeing cheated by unscrupulous city folk, ofbeing heartbroken when a lover left forBangkok and never returned (Fong, 2013).The songs are sung by the underclass ofBangkok with perhaps the unintended ironyof framing their own lot. Their music reso-nates across the concrete walls of the multi-storey structures, providing an eerily humancomponent expressing existential malaise, anantipode to the heavily mechanised keynoteand signal soundscapes (see Figure 9).

Signal sounds of Bangkok

In urban areas around the world, the siren isindicative of emergency personnel rushingtoward a situation of duress. However,sirens in Bangkok are less prevalent

Figure 8. Street vendors anticipating a lunch crowd approximately 2000 feet (610 m) northwest of SilomRoad and Rama IV Road intersection.Source: Google Maps (2014).

Fong 185



compared with the signal sound soundscapeof Los Angeles. Although the sirens fromlaw enforcement vehicles and fire trucks addto the keynote soundscape in ways that arepredictable and approximate to LosAngeles’ response teams, the sirens fromambulances themselves are rather rare.

Most Thais rarely call ambulances inemergencies. The most common responsefor someone experiencing an emergency is tohave a taxi or a friend/partner take theinjured to the hospital. Indeed, Bangkok hasonly approximately 150 hospital-orientedambulances for its population of over 12million living in congested traffic conditions(Pruecksamars, 2013). Moreover, Thais arefully aware of traffic congestion in their cityand would rather have an immediate depar-ture to a hospital rather than have to waitfor the arrival of an ambulance. If one wereto utilise the service of hospital-based ambu-lances, a fee is charged (Fujiwara et al.,1987). Although the government has since1977 provided a free service via the MedicalEvacuation Center (MEC), many Bangkokcitizens are ‘unaware of the existence of thisfree service’ (Fujiwara et al., 1987: 9). Whenthey are being employed ambulances

amazingly still have few rights of way, sotheir drivers still have to yield to traffic.Finally, helicopters essentially have no lawenforcement, journalistic or medical func-tions in Bangkok. The staccato sounds typi-cal of helicopters are nowhere to be heard.

One type of quasi-ambulance contribut-ing to the signal sounds of Bangkok’ssoundscape deserves mention, however.These volunteer vehicles respond to callersthat require them to ‘rush pregnant womento the hospital’ as well as engage in ‘cleaningup after shootings, stabbings and suicides .and most importantly, making accident vic-tims receive proper ‘‘pre-hospital’’ care inthis ambulance-starved metropolis’(Pruecksamars, 2013). Their main goal,however, is to respond to accident sceneswith fatalities for the sole purpose of retriev-ing the corpse/s. In a primarily Buddhisticculture where the line between the physicaland metaphysical is often blurred, volunteermedics and drivers are motivated to do theirjob by mystical beliefs in karmic justice, evensome necromancy, as well a commission forthose they successfully transport to a hospi-tal. The unfairly labeled khon kep sop (‘peo-ple who pick up corpses’), operate rather

Figure 9. Sight-impaired singers on Silom RoadSource: ‘Silom Street Music’ by Dale Bennett from YouTube (2010).




sophisticated vehicles with the livery ofeither the Ruam Katanyu Foundation or thePoh Teck Tung Foundation, two large pub-lic organisations whose sole purpose is tocharitably assist those in the cities experien-cing emergencies. The ‘ambulances’ fromthese foundations outnumber the hospital-operated vehicles: currently there over 4000such vehicles that are essentially ‘modifiedvans and pick-up trucks outfitted withstretchers, providing [the] megacity with anenormous, informal first-responder system’(Pruecksamars, 2013).

Soundmarks of Los Angeles and Bangkok

The soundmarks in both Los Angeles andBangkok were earwitnessed at the cities’ rel-atively quiet parks, Los Angeles’ EncinoPark (approximately 4.5 acres) andBangkok’s large Lumpini Park (approxi-mately 142 acres). Although relative quietcannot be said to be a unique soundmarklike an iconic stream, relative quiet hasredeeming qualities in how it functions as anacoustic escape in the city from the city.Both Encino and Lumpini parks had treesand grass to soften the ‘bite’ of the sounds-cape’s keynote and signal sounds. Recallthat Schafer described soundmarks as thosesounds that defer to the natural environmentin ways where the mechanised cacophony ofthe city is unable to overwhelm. However,not clearly explicated by Schafer is whethersoundmarks in a natural environment caninclude technologically generated soundsthat integrate themselves into the sounds-cape in ways that are culturally acceptableand welcomed. Your author is of the viewthat patrons to natural environments doaccept certain types of technology-basedacoustic expressions as soundmarks.

In a comprehensive three-article study of2933 residents in London, Langdon (1976)found that the parks with green spaces low-ered dissatisfaction with traffic noise to a

significant degree. Residents considered suchpositive soundscapes to be defined by envir-onments where ‘natural and human sounds’such as birds chirping and children playingcan be heard (Guastavino, 2006), all of which‘buffer against the adverse health effects dueto chronic traffic-noise exposure’ (Gidlof-Gunnarsson and Ohrstrom, 2007: 124).Recent findings continue to reveal that naturesounds and what Payne identified as ‘happypeople sounds’ tend to evoke positive feelingsamong residents compared with sounds frommachinery, road noise and mobile devices(Guastavino, 2006; Nilsson and Berglund,2006; Payne, 2011; Tamura, 2002; Yang andKang, 2005; Zannin et al., 2006).

In the case of Encino Park (see Figure 1),its smaller size did not detract from somekey Los Angeles park amenities, allowing apositive soundscape for soundmarks to exist.These stem from the generous shades offeredby its Oak trees (‘Encino’ is Spanish forOak). Additionally, dense leafage of EncinoPark’s Oak trees perceptibly reduces theloudness of the streets during the LRSs, anobservation not lost on acoustic consultantsThornburn Associates (2010) who note thatdensity of leafage noticeably reduces decibellevels. However, the bark of trees also playsan important role. An important 1976 studyon sound absorption of bark by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA)noted that Oak tree bark actually does littleto absorb sound when compared with theMockernut Hickory, whose bark has‘shale-like layers with spaces between them[allowing] individual layers to vibrate, trans-forming the . acoustical energy intomechanical energy’ (Reethof et al., 1976: 4).Nonetheless, your author has experiencedhow the thick leafage of Oak trees does havesound-absorption properties that noticeablyreduced nearby traffic noise.

In the park area are also barbecue grills, abasketball court, benches for visitors, as wellas two tennis courts. Often one sees families

Fong 187



pushing strollers and individuals relaxing onthe benches. However, the park is not neces-sarily a subdued soundmark environment aslocally organised arts and crafts festivalstake place in the setting throughout the year.The California Traditional Music Society,for example, holds events at the park, fur-ther contributing to the uniqueness EncinoPark’s soundmarks. Socially communicativesounds notwithstanding, sounds that wereearwitnessed include the contact made by abasketball on the court, a common cityrecreational activity in the USA. Manyparks in urban environments have basketballcourts as they are easy to install and requirelittle maintenance. As a popular Americanpastime that has been incorporated intomany urban parks, the contact sound of thebasketball being dribbled on the court is per-haps the most common sonic expression ofoutdoor American athletic activity in thecity.

Lumpini Park, located in the heart ofBangkok, offers visitors four large ponds,many exotic trees and playgrounds (seeFigure 10). The most common bird heardduring the LRSs was the entertainingCommon Myna, vocalising the complex

repertoire of squawks, chirps, clicks andcroaks. Pigeons and their cooing soundswere heard most explicitly when they werenear sources of foodstuffs. Jungle Crowswere often vocalising their unique squawks,while sparrows and their high-pitched chirpscontributed to the park setting. Althoughthese same birds can be seen everywhere inBangkok, perching on electrical wires, onbalcony ledges, etc., they are rarely heardbecause of the domination of the city’smotorised keynote soundscape. At Lumpini,their voices emerge as distinct soundmarks.

Unlike Encino Park, trees at LumpiniPark need not perform the task of absorbingkeynote sounds because of the compara-tively larger size of the of the landscape.Thornburn Associates note that open dis-tances of 100 feet reduce sound by an aver-age of 21 decibels (dB), that is, ‘if there is anopen area of 100 feet between a noise sourceand a listener, the noise will be approxi-mately 21 dB quieter than if the listener weredirectly adjacent to the noise source’(Thornburn Associates, 2010). That said,trees can be used to provide ‘a considerableamount of noise reduction’ (Ozer et al.,2008: 195–196). In their search for the most

Figure 10. Lumpini Park facing south into downtown Bangkok.Source: ‘Lumpini Park’ by Gabontour from Flickr (2008).




ideal plants suitable for this purpose inErzurum, Turkey, Ozer et al. found thatpine trees ‘are the most advantageous andeffective trees to be used in controlling noise’(2008: 196), a tree not endogenous at sealevel in South and Southeast Asia. However,the largest tree at Lumpini, the Banyan tree,visually hints at its capacity to absorb thecacophony from nearby streets because ofits thick leafage and serrated trunk. Perhapsthe many species of Palm trees at the parkfunction in the same manner to reduce traf-fic noise through their large leaves.

Somewhat approximate to Encino Park,Lumpini Park contains some social sound-marks through its open-air gyms where thesounds of physical effort can be heard.Pockets of weightlifting areas collect the buffas they grunt and work their barbells, gener-ating a clanking of metal on metal. At18:00 h, aerobic workout sessions are offeredto hundreds of locals, their instructors loudlycheering them on, rhythmically synchronis-ing them to the amplified music that tempo-rarily relegates the traffic cacophony ofBangkok to the background. Occasionalshrieks from unsuspecting tourists who seegiant water monitor lizards emerging fromponds are humorously part of the sound-mark soundscape of Lumpini. Few machineshave a loud sonic presence in the park andleaf blowers are not employed anywhere inBangkok.

Conclusion

The omission in urban sociology of sounds-cape analysis inspired this undertaking. Theresults of this exploratory study reveal thaturban noise pollution is a complex phenom-enon that is primarily caused by motorisedvehicles that interact with the configurationand density of urban settings. The continuityof vehicle movement in both Bangkok andLos Angeles is what constitutes their key-note sounds and embeds their signal sounds.

Indeed, motorised vehicles of all types arekey components in both cities’ sound imperi-alism, one that emits distinct soundscapetextures indicative of urban areas’ socialstructure and degree of development.However, a sonic antipode against thecacophony of automotive-generated soundscan be heard at urban parks where, as anabode for soundmarks, they function as anantithesis to the city’s keynote and signalsounds.

Soundmarks in both Bangkok and LosAngeles emanate not from bona fide naturalenvironments but from the simulacrum ofwell-manicured parks. The parks offer whatSchafer (1977) termed ‘soniferous gardens’by creating sonic space for hints of primor-dial nature through the sounds of foliageand fauna. In both cities, the key animalsable to contribute to the pleasantness ofsoundmarks are varying species of birds.Additionally, different types of tree leavesbeing rustled by the wind offer a sonicresponse to the city as a loud gesellschaftmachine. At the parks, the presence of com-municative chatter by urban residentsengaged in recreational activities harmo-nised with the sonic elements of rustlingleaves and fauna. As Payne (2011) observed– albeit from a psychological perspective –natural and ‘happy people’ soundmarksheard in parks are therapeutic and restorethe human spirit, allowing urban dwellersthe capacity to ‘recover’ from a city’s intensesonic stimuli (2011: 154). This dynamic man-ifested through the soundmarks of bothBangkok’s Lumpini Park and Los Angeles’Encino park.

Should an urban sociology of sounds-capes find form, the discourse must tacklehow the urban sonic environment exhibitssocial structure. It is hoped that this explora-tory attempt at making operative Schafer’sconcepts is a first important affirmation thatby listening to the city as an earwitness andembarking on soundwalks, scholars of

Fong 189



urban sociology can begin to comprehendhow the nesting of sounds is shaped by acomplex interplay of cultural norms, urbandensity and degree of development in thecity. Thus, noise pollution cannot be seen inan essentialised manner. All cities have sonicoutputs that reveal the priorities, urbanstrains, and arguably, even the ethos of itsurban residents.

Although Schafer noted that the 20th cen-tury was consistently the loudest period inhuman history, the potential and prescienceof soundscape studies can be employed tomake to make the 21st century a much qui-eter century for urban society. Indeed, a keyrealisation from this soundscape study isthat if praxis can occur through noise abate-ment regulations, it is how the social andnatural sounds of parks can be conceptua-lised as a natural resource urban residentscan strive to preserve, protect and proliferatein a strategically essentialised manner. Thisundertaking needs to be seriously consideredgiven that more than half of the global pop-ulation now lives in urban areas (UnitedNations Population Fund (UNFPA), 2007).

The constitutive dynamics of a compara-tively quieter urban experience are alreadyin place but not yet amalgamated into a glo-bal, coherent discourse: automobiles – andultimately trucks and perhaps aircraft – aretransitioning toward hybrid and/or electricmotors, making these machines much qui-eter on the keynote soundscape. Should dri-verless cars – especially those beingdeveloped by Google – become the norm,functional and aggravated honking, recklessacceleration, reckless braking that causesscreeches and the cacophony of metal tometal contact from accidents, might be asounds of the past. Moreover, as noted byDubois et al. (2006) and Guastavino (2006),because of the already favourable sentimentsin place for public transportation soundsfrom trains and trams (and likely for electricbuses as well), the future of urban

soundscapes can be further improved withtheir expanded implementation. When com-bined with urban planning that can be madeto promote parks and landscapes that maxi-mise sound absorption, along with noiseabatement regulation, less cacophonous andnoise-polluted urban worlds are realisable.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from anyfunding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adams M, Cox T, Moore G, et al. (2006) Sustain-

able soundscapes: Noise policy and the urban

experience. Urban Studies 43(13): 2385–2398.Babisch W, Beule B, Schust M, et al. (2005) Traf-

fic noise and risk of myocardial infarction.

Epidemiology 16: 33–40.Babisch W, Ising H and Gallacher JEJ (1999)

Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: The

Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, third phase

– 10-year follow up. Archives of Environmental

Health 54(3): 210–216.Banerjee D, Chakraborty SK, Bhattacharyya S,

et al. (2009) Attitudinal response towards road

traffic noise in the industrial town of Asansol,

India. Environmental Monitoring Assessment

151: 37–44.Bjork EA (1994) Community noise in different

seasons in Kuopio, Finland. Applied Acoustics

42(2): 137–150.Bluhm G, Berglind N, Nordling E, et al. (2007)

Road traffic noise and hypertension. Occupa-

tional and Environmental Medicine 64:

122–126.Botteldooren D, De Coensel B and De Muer T

(2004) The temporal structure of the urban

soundscape. Paper presented at CFA/DAGA

‘04, Strasbourg22–25March. Available at:

http://www.dega-akustik.de/publikationen/daga/

CFADAGA_04_Programmheft.pdf.Chakraborty D, Santra SC and Roy B (1998) Sur-

vey of community annoyance due to traffic

noise-exposure in Calcutta metropolis. Journal

of Acoustic Society of India 26(1): 39–43.



http://www.dega-akustik.de/publikationen/daga/CFADAGA_04_Programmheft.pdf

http://www.dega-akustik.de/publikationen/daga/CFADAGA_04_Programmheft.pdf


Consumer Reports Magazine (2010) Blower

noise. Available at: http://www.consumerre

ports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/september/

home-garden/leaf-blower/blower-noise/index.

htm.De Coensel B, De Muer T, Yperman I, et al.

(2005) The influence of traffic flow dynamics

on urban soundscapes. Applied Acoustics 66:

175–194.Dubois D, Guastavino C and Raimbault M

(2006) A cognitive approach to urban sounds-

capes: Using verbal data to access everyday

life auditory categories. Acta Acustica United

with Acustica 92: 865–874.Dursun S, Ozdemir C, Karabork H, et al. (2006)

Noise pollution and map of Konya City in

Turkey. Journal of Internatonal Environmental

Application and Science 1(1–2): 63–72.Evans GW, Lercher P and Meis M (2001) Com-

munity noise exposure and stress in children.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

109(3): 1023–1027.Fong J (2013) Political vulnerabilities of a pri-

mate city: The May 2010 Red Shirts uprising

in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Asian and

African Studies 48(3): 332–347.Fujiwara O, Makjamroen T and Kumar K (1987)

Ambulance deployment analysis: A case study

of Bangkok. European Journal of Operational

Research 31: 9–18.Genuit K (1999) The use of psychoacoustic para-

meters combined with A-weighted SPL in

noise description. In: Cuschieri J, Glegg S and

Young Y (eds) Proceedings of Internoise 99.

Fort Lauderdale, FL: Institute of Noise Con-

trol Engineering, pp. 1887–1892.Gidlof-Gunnarsson A and Ohrstrom E (2007)

Noise and well-being in urban residential

environments: The potential role of perceived

availability to nearby green areas. Landscape

and Urban Planning 83: 115–126.Guastavino C (2006) The ideal urban soundscape:

Investigating the sound quality of French cit-

ies. Acta Acustica United With Acustica 92:

945–951.Hiatt K (2010) Too noisy at work? Watch out for

heart tisks. U.S. News and World Report.

Available at: http://health.usnews.com/health-

news/family-health/heart/articles/2010/10/06/

too-noisy-at-work-watch-out-for-heart-risks.

Hogan CM (1973) Analysis of highway noise.

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 2: 387–392.Ising H and Kruppa B (2004) Health effects

caused by noise: Evidence in the literature

from the past 25 years. Noise and Health 6(22):

5–13.Jones C (2004) Cities, towns getting earache.

USA Today. Available at: http://www.usato

day.com/news/nation/2004–08–01-noise-crack

down_x.htm.Khilman T (2004) Noise pollution in cities, Curi-

tiba and Goteborg as examples. In: Proceed-

ings of the Seminar – Environmental Aspects of

Urbanization – Seminar in Honor of Dr Motafa

Kama Tolba. Gothenberg, Sweden.Langdon J (1976) Noise nuisance caused by road

traffic in residential areas, part 1. Journal of

Sound and Vibration 111: 243–263.Leong ST and Laortanakul P (2003) Monitoring

and assessment of daily exposure of roadside

workers to traffice noise levels in an Asian city:

A case study of Bangkok streets. Environmen-

tal Monitoring Assessment 85: 69–85.Nilsson ME and Berglund B (2006) Soundscape

quality in suburban green areas and city parks.

Acta Acustica United with Acustica 92: 903–911.

Ohrstrom E (2004) Longitudinal surveys on

effects of changes in road traffic noise –

Annoyance, activity, disturbances, and

psycho-social well-being. Journal of Acoustical

Society of America 115: 719–729.Ozer S, Irmak MA and Yilmaz H (2008) Deter-

mination of roadside noise reduction effective-

ness of Pinus Sylvestris L. and Populis Nigra

L. in Erzurum, Turkey. Environmental Moni-

toring Assessment 144: 191–197.Payne SR (2011) Soundscapes within urban parks:

Their restorative value. In: Bonaiuto M,

Bonnes M, Nenci AM, et al. (eds) Urban

Diversities – Environmental and Social Issues.

Boston, MA: Hogrefe Publishing, pp. 147–158.Pruecksamars W (2013) The white-knuckle nights

of Bangkok’s volunteer ambulance squads. The

Rockefeller Foundation’s Informal City

Dialogs. Available at: http://nextcity.org/

informalcity/entry/the-white-knuckle-nights-of-

bangkoks-volunteer-ambulance-squads.Raimbault M and Dubois D (2005) Urban

soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cit-

ies 22(5): 339–350.

Fong 191


http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/september/home-garden/leaf-blower/blower-noise/index.htm




http://health.usnews.com/healthnews/family-health/heart/articles/2010/10/06/too-noisy-at-work-watch-out-for-heart-risks



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004%E2%80%9308%E2%80%9301-noise-crackdown_x.htm



http://nextcity.org/informalcity/entry/the-white-knuckle-nights-ofbangkoks-volunteer-ambulance-squads




Reethof G, Frank LD and McDaniel OH (1976)Absorption of sound by tree bark. USDA For-

est Service Research Paper NE-341, pp. 1–7.Schafer RM (1977) The Soundscape: Our Sonic

Environment and the Tuning of the World.Rochester, VT: Destiny Books.

Tamura A (2002) Recognition of sounds in resi-dential areas – An indicator of our ambiguouswound environment. Journal of Asian Archi-

tecture, Building, and Engineering 48: 41–48.Thompson E (2002) The Soundscape of Moder-

nity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of

Listening in America 1900–1933. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Thornburn Associates (2010) Trees as Sound Bar-

riers. Available at: http://www.ta-inc.com/newshtml/TreesAsSoundBarriers.html.

Truax B (1978) Handbook for Acoustic Ecology.Originally published by the World Soundscape

Project, Simon Fraser University. Available at:http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/.

UNFPA (2007) State of World Population 2007:

Unleashing the Potential of Human Growth.New York: UNFPA.

Yang W and Kang J (2005) Soundscapes andsound preferences in urban squares. Journal ofUrban Design 10: 69–88.

Yilmaz G and Hocanli Y (2006) Mapping of noiseusing GIS in Sanliurfa. Environmental Moni-

toring and Assessment 121: 103–108.Zannin PHT, Diniz FB and Barbosa W (2002)

Environmental noise pollution in the city ofCuritiba, Brazil. Applied Acoustics 63(4):351–358.

Zannin PHT, Ferreira AMC and Szerremetta B(2006) Evaluation of noise pollution in urbanparks. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-

ment 118: 423–433.



http://www.ta-inc.com/newshtml/TreesAsSoundBarriers.html

http://www.ta-inc.com/newshtml/TreesAsSoundBarriers.html


Documents

Urban Studies 2016, Vol. 53(1) 173–192 Making operative ... Stud-2016-Fong-173-92.pdf · Murray Schafer’s soundscapes typology: A qualitative and comparative analysis of noise