A soundscape dimension model is proposed. The proposed model is not soundscape specific. It has been used to explain – and account for – the variation represented by the first two principal components arising from Phase Two’s in situ listening and from Kang’s in situ listening tests’ findings. Appraisal theory was introduced in section 2.3.3 and it is here that it comes into play in the interpretation of semantic differentials’ soundscape dimensions.
The first component (22.%) from in situ responses drew together appreciation - ‘pleasant’ and ‘comfortable’ – with spatiality - ‘anechoic’ and ‘directional’ – and dynamics – ‘fast’. This does not correlate with existing findings such as Kang’s [59] whereby the first component can be defined as ‘relaxation’. This first factor must be contextualised in order to further understand its definition.
The majority of people using the open outdoor space at MediaCity between the hours of 12:00 and 15:00, and hence the majority of participants, were those taking a lunch break from work in the offices of the immediate vicinity. In fact nine out of the eleven subjects tested were doing just this. They had actively chosen to spend their rest/leisure time outdoors. The choice implies there was motivation. The outdoor soundscape contrasted with the office soundscape in spatial terms: the lack of echo and (partly consequentially) its directionality. It is also probably faster in its temporal variation or least one is more aware
166
of the pace as one’s mind slows, resting from the focuses of work. Given this influence of the participants’ place-relationship with the soundscape, the first dimension can be understood as how appropriate the soundscape affordances are for the earwitness’ requirements or desires. It is proposed that the first dimension should be understood as ‘motivation-affordance fit’.
A comparison with Kang’s soundscape dimensions showed variation that can be explained by the differing affordances (or purposes) of the soundscape locations and the differing motivations for the earwitnesses’ presence there. In the case of Kang’s soundscapes, those of urban parks, the motivation for public attendance is clear: to relax in a peaceful environment. Indeed Kang’s first dimension included ‘quiet’, ‘boring’ and ‘natural’. There is quite a strong consensus on the role of urban parks and hence the ‘non-user’ participants used in Kang’s study may well have partly evaluated the parks’ soundscapes – and the motivation-affordance fit – in terms of the obvious hypothetical motivation, to relax.
The second dimensions both contained elements of sound content/communication and appraisal. The naming of a communication dimension somewhat neglects the contributions of ‘calming’, ‘smooth’ and ‘like’ in both instances. It is proposed that the second dimension should be understood as ‘mediation’. It represents the emotions extracted from the motivation-affordance fit alongside the reasoning that relates sound to place.
167
These two dimensions, ‘motivation-affordance fit’ and ‘mediation’ are of particular significance not only because they explain the greatest variance but because they align sonic descriptors (such as ‘artificial’) with appraisals (such as ‘like’). The third and fourth dimensions do not do this and may be deemed the ‘left-overs’ – the sound entity/spatiality semantics that did not play a role in the subjects’ judgements of motivation-affordance fit in the first dimension. Their grouping merely reflects their lexical meaning. The second dimensions generally contained all the sound content/communication semantics for the subjects’ mediations. It is hypothesised that if more content/communication differentials had been included, there would have been another dimension of sound content/communication ‘left-overs’ too. The fewer number of content differentials than entity differentials meant this was not the case with the 18 semantic differentials used.
The model still holds for the reproduction listening semantic differentials’ soundscape dimensions. The difference with the binaural was that the motivation-affordance fit and
mediation dimensions were manifest in the second and third dimensions. Instead of the primary dimension of evaluation being a part of the subject’s appraisal, it was purely objective (with the exception of calming-agitating): the ‘timbre and dynamics’ dimension from the in situ listening was promoted from third to first. Gentle-harsh and hard-soft moved from the third dimension, timbre and dynamics, in situ to the first dimension, entity and effect, for ambisonics. For both ambisonic and binaural reproductions, pleasant- unpleasant moved from the first (in situ) to the second dimensions.
168
Unfortunately a detailed comparison with Phase One’s semantic differential results is not possible due to the differing semantic scales used. However it can still be noted that – as per the Phase One results – the reproductions were evaluated more objectively than the in situ soundscapes. Further investigation is advised to (dis)prove the alternative hypothesis that the objective focus of the reproduction listening tests was not due to the reproduction itself but the agency and expertise of the participants.
5.1.1.1 Expectation and Motivation-affordance fit
A good match between the subject’s motivations and the soundscape’s affordances gives the subject a positive appraisal and thus a positive emotion is extracted. This relates somewhat to the theory of expectation: the idea that a positive appraisal follows the matching of a soundscape and the subject’s expectation [59]. However, the expectation theory does not take into account appreciation of the unexpected. For example, during the Phase One testing with the focus group at MediaCity a distant choir could be heard: it was both unexpected and incongruous with the immediate surroundings but all participants reviewed the sound as positive. It is motivation that may (or may not) summon expectation. One may have a pre-conceived idea of how a motivation-affordance fitting environment may sound based on prior experience but that is not to say that an unexpectedly sounding environment will not also be motivation-affordance fitting and positively appraised.
169
The notion of ‘motivation-affordance fit’ encompasses the particular scenarios where expectation plays a role but also scenarios where the unexpected meets the earwitness’s motivations and is positively appraised. It also avoids diminishing the role of the sonic as merely following the visual. In the fields of urban and architectural theory cities are understood as multifaceted, temporal and there to be explored. The idea of dwellers purely seeking to journey through the city uninhibited by the unexpected would be an alien phenomenon. It would point to an ideal that manifests as architectural homogeneity.
Expectation theory is not reliable and, most importantly, the implicit doctrine that a good soundscape follows its visual counterpart is not constructive in the promotion of soundscapes. Therefore it is proposed that the theory of expectation be transcended by the theory of motivation-affordance fit.
Beyond the purpose of replacing expectation theory, the theory of expectation-affordance fit is broadly applicable due to its relation to the process of appraisal. The interpretations of the semantic differentials’ soundscape dimensions also incorporated the appraisal process of mediation. This was due to the test nature of the evaluations: the soundscape questionnaire itself encouraged descriptive listening – and hence mediation – as well as holistic listening. However, in ‘normal’ listening conditions holistic listening is a prominent listening state with regards to the soundscape. Therefore it is the motivation-affordance fit that should be central to the (professional) evaluation of soundscapes.
170
5.1.1.2 Application in Urban Planning and Design
Place affordance is a familiar notion in the field of architecture whereby spaces are designed around people and purpose. It is therefore useful to extend the notion of place affordances to the sonic. The concept of ‘zoning’ seeks to break the tendency for homogeneity across a city (and its soundscapes) by defining spaces with clear place identities. This could be as simple as emphasising a space as a place where one can relax, or work, or play. It is the geographically-specific design of a motivation-affordance fit.
The occurrence of a motivation-affordance fit dimension within the semantic differentials’ soundscape dimensions poses a method of assessing the motivation-affordance fit of a soundscape. It also provides the ability to identify which features/characteristics of a soundscape are perceived as key affordances in relation to the subject’s motivations, and in turn their appraisal of the soundscape.
5.1.1.3 Summary
It is proposed that a PCA of semantic differential responses for any in situ listening tests will produce two dimensions that represent the motivation-affordance fit and mediation identified in the psychological theories of appraisal. When using Kang’s 18 semantic differentials in situ the following dimensions were interpreted: 1) Motivation-affordance fit; 2) Mediation; 3) Sound entity; 4) Spatiality. Furthermore, it is proposed that the theory of ‘expectation’ is transcended with the theory of ‘motivation-affordance fit’.
171