EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 10 (2026) Acta Acust., 10 (2026) 48 References
Issue
Acta Acust.
Volume 10, 2026
Topical Issue - Progressing on soundscape intervention
Article Number 48
Number of page(s) 18
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2026046
Published online 19 June 2026
  1. T. Panagopoulos, J.A. González Duque, M. Bostenaru Dan: Urban planning with respect to environmental quality and human well-being. Environmental Pollution 208 (2016) 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.07.038 [Google Scholar]
  2. I. van Kamp, K. Leidelmeijer, G. Marsman, A. de Hollander: Urban environmental quality and human well-being. Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (2003) 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. M. Schuck, T. Haselhoff, B.T. Lawrence, S. Moebus, A. Fiebig: Advancing the characterization of urban acoustic environments through multimetric analysis. Acta Acustica 9 (2025) 66. https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2025051 [Google Scholar]
  4. B.M. Brooks, B. Schulte-Fortkamp, D.S. Woolworth: Soundscape in application. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 156 (2024) A93–A93. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0035218 [Google Scholar]
  5. W.J. Davies, M.D. Adams, N.S. Bruce, R. Cain, A. Carlyle, P. Cusack, D.A. Hall, K.I. Hume, A. Irwin, P. Jennings, M. Marselle: Perception of soundscapes: an interdisciplinary approach. Applied Acoustics 74 (2013) 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.05.010 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. B. Schulte-Fortkamp, B.M. Brooks: Applying soundscape: a matter of participation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 155 (2024) A113–A113. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0026993 [Google Scholar]
  7. S. Durbridge, D.T. Murphy: Assessment of soundscapes using self-report and physiological measures. Acta Acustica 7 (2023) 6. https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2022059 [Google Scholar]
  8. K.W. Ma, C.M. Mak, H.M. Wong: Effects of environmental sound quality on soundscape preference in a public urban space. Applied Acoustics 171 (2021) 107570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107570 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. International Organization for Standardization: ISO 12913-1 acoustics – soundscape – part 1: definition and conceptual framework, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. International Organization for Standardization: ISO/TS 12913-2 acoustics – soundscape – part 2: data collection and reporting requirements, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. International Organization for Standardization: ISO/TS 12913-3 acoustics – soundscape – part 3: data analysis, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  12. A. Holmes, M. Neal, P. Zahorik: Loudness in rooms and the sound strength parameter: linking perception and physical acoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 153 (2023) A156–A156. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0018487 [Google Scholar]
  13. T.-C. Chan, B.-S. Wu, Y.-T. Lee, P.-H. Lee, R.-H. Deng: Exploring relationships among soundscape perception, spatiotemporal sound characteristics, and personal traits through social media. Noise Mapping 10 (2023) 20220174. https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2022-0174 [Google Scholar]
  14. X. Wen, Q. Meng, Y. Yin, D. Yang, M. Li, J. Kang: Exploring the boundaries of indoor combined thermal-acoustic environmental effects on comfort perceptions. Building and Environment 271 (2025) 112580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112580 [Google Scholar]
  15. S. Torresin, R. Albatici, F. Aletta, F. Babich, T. Oberman, S. Siboni, J. Kang: Indoor soundscape assessment: a principal components model of acoustic perception in residential buildings. Building and Environment 182 (2020) 107152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107152 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. F. Aletta, J. Kang, Ö. Axelsson: Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning 149 (2016) 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.02.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. K. Nagahata, M. Saito, T. Funayama, T. Ishii: Can the perceived affective quality scales evaluate the restorativeness of soundscapes? in: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings. Vol. 268, 2023, pp. 3659–3666. https://doi.org/10.3397/IN_2023_0520. [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Monteiro Antunes, R.L.X. Nascimento Michalski, M. Luiza de Ulhôa Carvalho, S. Alves, L. Cláudio Ribeiro: A European and Brazilian cross-national investigation into the Portuguese translation of soundscape perceptual attributes within the SATP project. Applied Acoustics 211 (2023) 109472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2023.109472 [Google Scholar]
  19. N.G. de Mesquita Peixoto, L. Rafael Ferreira, R.C. Afonso, V.G. Comissoli, L. Marques Monteiro: A methodological approach for soundscape attributes translation using Twitter data: a case study in the Portuguese language. Applied Acoustics 218 (2024) 109880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2024.109880 [Google Scholar]
  20. R.L.X.N. Michalski, V.S.G.D Melo, M.S. Engel: Soundscape standardization and sustainability: an evaluation of ISO 12913 in the Brazilian Context. Sustainability 18, 6 (2026) 2752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18062752 [Google Scholar]
  21. L.J. Simms, K. Zelazny, T.F. Williams, L. Bernstein: Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data. Psychological Assessment 31 (2019) 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000648 [Google Scholar]
  22. A. DeCastellarnau: A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review. Quality & Quantity 52 (2018) 1523–1559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. J. Dawes: Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research 50 (2008) 61–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106 [Google Scholar]
  24. E. Cabooter, B. Weijters, M. Geuens, I. Vermeir: Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use. Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2574–2584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.138 [Google Scholar]
  25. J.K. Höhne, T. Lenzner: New insights on the cognitive processing of agree/disagree and item-specific questions. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 6, 3 (2018) 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smx028 [Google Scholar]
  26. C. Tarlao, D. Steele, C. Guastavino: Assessing the ecological validity of soundscape reproduction in different laboratory settings. PLoS One 17, 6 (2022) e0270401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270401 [Google Scholar]
  27. Z. Rachman, F. Aletta, J. Kang: Exploring soundscape assessment methods in office environments: a systematic review. Buildings 14, 11 (2024) 3408. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113408 [Google Scholar]
  28. D. Schreckenberg, C. Belke, J. Spilski: The Development of a Multiple-Item Annoyance Scale (MIAS) for transportation noise annoyance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15 (2018) 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050971 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. International Organization for Standardization: ISO/TS 15666 acoustics – assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  30. M. Brink, D. Schreckenberg, D. Vienneau, C. Cajochen, J.-M. Wunderli, N. Probst-Hensch, M. Röösli: Effects of scale, question location, order of response alternatives, and season on self-reported noise annoyance using ICBEN scales: a field experiment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13 (2016) 1163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111163 [Google Scholar]
  31. J. Zhang, K. Chen, H. Li, X. Chen, N. Dong: The effects of rating scales and individual characteristics on perceived annoyance in laboratory listening tests. Applied Acoustics 202 (2023) 109137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2022.109137 [Google Scholar]
  32. R. Arvidsson: On the use of ordinal scoring scales in social life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24 (2019) 604–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1557-2 [Google Scholar]
  33. L.A. King, D.W. King, A.J. Klockars: Dichotomous and multipoint scales using bipolar adjectives. Applied Psychological Measurement 7 (1983) 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168300700205 [Google Scholar]
  34. N. Menold: Verbalization of rating scales taking account of their polarity. Field Methods 35 (2023) 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X231151314 [Google Scholar]
  35. E.J. Snell: A scaling procedure for ordered categorical data. Biometrics 20 (1964) 592. https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498 [Google Scholar]
  36. A. Mitchell, F. Aletta, J. Kang: How to analyse and represent quantitative soundscape data. JASA Express Letters 2 (2022) 037201. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0009794 [Google Scholar]
  37. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative: KoboToolbox platform, n.d., https://hhi.harvard.edu/kobotoolbox. [Google Scholar]
  38. R Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2024), https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  39. JASP Team: JASP, 2024, https://jasp-stats.org/previous-versions/. [Google Scholar]
  40. M. Maruf: Alternative approach to analysing data obtained with likert scale. Route Educational & Social Science Journal 10 (2023) 96–102. https://doi.org/10.17121/ressjournal.3439 [Google Scholar]
  41. S.N. Chakrabartty: Port sustainability index: methodological issues. Journal of Energy & Environmental Science 2 (2024) 1–10. https://doi.org/10.23880/jeesc-16000107 [Google Scholar]
  42. M. Prudjinski, I. Hadar, G. Luria: Exploring the role of team security climate in the implementation of security by design: a case study in the defense sector. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 50 (2024) 1065–1079. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2024.3374114 [Google Scholar]
  43. P.M. Lindborg: A taxonomy of sound sources in restaurants. Applied Acoustics 110 (2016) 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2016.03.032 [Google Scholar]
  44. N.G.M. Peixoto, L. Rafael Ferreira, M.E. Klein, R.L.X.N. Michalski, L.M. Monteiro: Influence of soundscape on quality of work from home during the second phase of the pandemic in Brazil. Noise Mapping 10, 1 (2023) 20220175. https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2022-0175 [Google Scholar]
  45. H.B. Mann, D.R. Whitney: On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18, 1 (1947) 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491 [Google Scholar]
  46. N. Nachar: The Mann–Whitney U: a test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 4, 1 (2008) 13–20. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.1.p013 [Google Scholar]
  47. G.W. Divine, H.J. Norton, A.E. Barón, E. Juarez-Colunga: The Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney procedure fails as a test of medians. The American Statistician 72, 3 (2018) 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1305291 [Google Scholar]
  48. A. Hart: Mann–Whitney test is not just a test of medians: differences in spread can be important. BMJ 323, 7309 (2001) 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7309.391 [Google Scholar]
  49. M.P. Fay, M.A. Proschan: Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics Surveys 4 (2010) 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS051 [Google Scholar]
  50. P. McKnight, J. Najab: Mann–Whitney U Test, in: N.J. Salkind (ed). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design, SAGE Publications, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n228. [Google Scholar]
  51. A.W. Harzing: Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6, 2 (2006) 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595806066332 [Google Scholar]
  52. M. Kemmelmeier: Cultural differences in survey responding: issues and insights in the study of response biases. International Journal of Psychology 51, 6 (2016) 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12386 [Google Scholar]
  53. E. Ulitzsch, M. Henninger, T. Meiser: Differences in response-scale usage are ubiquitous in cross-country comparisons and a potential driver of elusive relationships. Scientific Reports 14 (2024) 10890. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60465-0 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.