61
62
by residents because of the social nature of those sounds, and the link to the city’s liveliness, character and available amenities. The Nieuw West district seems quieter overall, and more participants had double-glazed windows that protected them from sounds. However, the types of sound in that district are more mechanical, often produced by both air and road traffic, which are evaluated more negatively. What seems to connects all these different personal preferences, needs, and environmental circumstances to the evaluation of sound and in turn the need for quietness, is what I propose to call ‘sound sovereignty’; the perceived and actual ability to exercise a certain level of control over the acoustic environment. Related to personal or socio-economic opportunities, an actual or sense of control over the acoustic environment seems to improve the evaluation of sound and thus reduces the need for quietness. This new concepts creates a sociological link between findings of multiple studies on sound from a wide array of academic disciplines, that connects the experience of sound to safety, social justice, control, and power.
The last sub question pertains the situational nature and contextual experience of urban sound and quietness, diving into the spatial, social and temporal contexts of urban sound. In relation to place, the quietness of participants’ homes were often judged along the presence of appropriate sounds that were deemed normal or natural, or typical for the environment. Sounds that were named as ‘typical’ are soundmarks, which display the different acoustic characteristics between the two city districts. The soundmarks of the Centrum district were numerous and varied, creating a cacophonic and chaotic image of Amsterdam’s city centre, nevertheless often described positively in terms of liveliness. The typical sounds for Nieuw West are more centred around traffic and sound coming from neighbours or other locals. These typical sounds mentioned by participants of both districts, also influenced their way of judging the typical sounds for the city as a whole; Centrum residents describe the urban sounds of Amsterdam in terms of liveliness and its noise as an inherent part of urban living. Nieuw West residents experienced typical Amsterdam sounds more in terms of traffic and overall busyness of the city. In short: place matters.
The experience of urban sound is not only informed by the spatial contexts of the city, but also the social aspects of urban life. So it not only matters where sounds are perceived, also who produces those sounds. Sounds that remind the perceiver of pleasant social interactions, of liveliness, ‘gezelligheid’, conviviality and vibrancy in the city, where often evaluated positively. The liveliness of urban sound also installed participants with a sense of safety and
‘feeling at home’. In contrast, sounds which have negative social connotations are often regarded as unpleasant, unwanted or unsafe. The negative image of certain types of tourists or
63
loitering youths, for example, influence the subjective experience of their sounds. What matters greatly, then, is whether we personally like or feel connected to the people that produce these sounds. The evaluation of sound could thus be fruitfully used to explore urban social relations, feeling at home, sense of belonging, conflict and harmony.
Lastly, the time in which sound is produced and experienced comes to the fore as one of the central and most commonly mentioned factors that influence our evaluation of sound.
Again, it depends on the appropriateness of sound for a given temporal context such as time of day. Loud sounds that occur at night or early in the morning are more negatively evaluated than during the day. The Summer seems to be a noisier time than the Winter, not only because of the swelling of overall urban sound and activity, but because of the reduced options for isolation, sound sovereignty, by opening up windows and doors let the breeze or sun in, along with sounds from outside. Then, sound is also experienced over time, thus viewed from a historical perspective. Many participants mentioned that the city has become busier and louder over the past decade or so. But whereas some have become used to the levels of noise, others seem to get increasingly annoyed by it. The Covid-19 pandemic represents a clear break in the increasing noisiness of the city as Amsterdam fell quiet in the Spring of 2020 due to the
‘intelligent lockdown’ measures. Especially in the first lockdown, the quietness of the city became extremely noticeable and was often appreciated as a break from the usual busyness, especially in the Centrum district. The newness of this urban quietness has faded into normalcy for many, and creates a new reference point for the future. Many participants mentioned being worried about the possible busyness and noisiness of the city that post-pandemic future might bring. The changes in the Amsterdam soundscape during the Covid-19 pandemic have revealed and emphasised the importance of acoustic environments and quietness for our health, wellbeing, and happiness in the city.
7.2 Theoretical Implications and Contributions
By approaching urban sound an quietness from a subjective and situational perspective, this study is a qualitative contribution to mainstream, quantitative research on urban sound. Whereas the bulk of academic studies have focussed on the effects of unpleasant sound, it should now be clear that there is much more to the urban acoustic environment than just noise. Sounds of the city can also make people feel happy, safe, or at home. Paying attention only to the negative sides of sound does the city no justice. Furthermore, findings in this study have shown quietness to be an ambiguous and contextual concept that does not mean the same thing in every
64
environment. It should be kept in mind by scholars, policy makers and city planners alike that there is no one-size-fits-all approach when thinking about and creating healthy and pleasant urban acoustic environments. Namely, what is considered quiet is dependent largely on the appropriateness of certain sounds in a given environment which could wildly differ from place to place. This means that sound policy is not necessarily best produced at the national or supranational level it is now (like the Environmental Noise Directive of the European Union), but rather should be reviewed and implemented at the local level of the city and that of the neighbourhood, in communication with its residents. Sounds are most pleasant when they feel natural to the environment, when they fit the character of a place. So when rethinking the sound in an urban area, it also means rethinking what the city is for, and importantly, who the city is for.
What should also be a major takeaway from this study is that a pleasant urban environment is not just established by minimising noise. For many participants in this study, the city is experienced holistically and multi-sensorially. They did not just perceive the city through noise or quietness, they saw it, felt it, smelled it or even tasted it. Therefore, planners and policy makers would do well to approach the urban experience more holistically, investigating and incorporating the different ways in which the city is perceived. This study shows that the sensorial experience of the city impacts our everyday lives, health, and wellbeing but it is yet to be shown how combined sensorial aspects of the city play their part. Although this study contributes to literature on urban sound, other researchers should be encouraged to incorporate not only soundscapes, but also more inclusive ‘sensescapes’ (Adams & Guy, 2007).
To conclude, it would be an understatement to say that research on the sensorial experience of the city, such as urban sound and quietness, still has a lot to offer, especially for sociologists and other social scientists. Among the many studies on sound from psychology, landscape and urban planning, environmental research and urban health, or acoustic and sound research, a clear and prominent sociological perspective is still lacking. But this study has shown that the experience of sound is also tied up with social issues such as inequality and power relations.
Not everyone has the same need for- or access to quietness, but it is not yet clear how this intersects with socioeconomic factors, social cohesion or sense of belonging, to name a few examples. Although the introduction of the new concepts of sound sovereignty might be a step in the right direction, we still have a long way to go to discover how people deal with the constant ‘overstimulation’ that the city produces, and how they interact with the city’s overflowing sights, smells, and sounds.
65