Soundwalk, Questionnaires and Noise Measurements in a University Campus: A Soundscape Study

Abstract

In order to manage noise pollution and reduce its environmental impact and health outcomes, several regulations have been issued in the last few decades, defining acoustic indicators and their thresholds. However, the acoustic environment can be considered a resource, focusing on people’s subjective perception of sounds in accordance with the soundscape approach. The integration of the tools, already applied by the legislation, and the soundscape technique produces a more thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the environmental noise that is necessary for its management. Starting from the best practice of the soundscape in urban planning, this paper presents an application of this approach at the Fisciano campus of the University of Salerno (Italy). The overarching goal is the comparison between the physical parameters, obtained by measuring the sound pressure level, and the psychoacoustic ones, derived by questionnaires given to a group of local experts during a soundwalk. The results will show, for example, some areas characterized by high sound pressure levels and a good perception of the soundscape. As a consequence, the application would seem to have discrepancies between the results of the two methods, but a deeper analysis can reveal further information to the traditional measurements that allow a more accurate knowledge of the acoustic environment.

1. Introduction

The dynamic evolution of society worldwide can be compared to a coin with two opposite faces, characterized by a considerable improvement in collective well-being and, at the same time, negative effects on the environment, such as the intensification of pollution. Among its components, noise pollution produces negative impacts on the environment and, according to the EEA [1], 20% of the European population lives in areas where noise levels are considered harmful to health.

In order to manage human exposure to noise, the widespread approach focuses on the control of the physical parameters of the acoustic environment, acting interventions aimed to respect limits of sound pressure levels during the day and night time, defined by regulations [2]. However, the effect of their reduction does not always correspond to a sensible improvement of the quality of the environment as perceived by the users. Furthermore, uncertainty in sound level measurements may occur, leading to different perceptions by the site user [3]. Indeed, subjective perceptions of an acoustic environment have an important role in the human evaluation of a place and the improvement of quality of life [4]. For this reason, the scientific community has recently shifted the attention to an innovative approach for the study of noise pollution, named “soundscape”. It is common to find soundscape studies alongside standard or innovative noise assessment methods, such as, for instance, the noise source and propagation modeling, e.g., [5,6,7]. The main innovation in soundscape is that the sound is not considered a waste product to be controlled and managed, but a real resource, acting on the enhancement of the desired sounds, for example, the reproduction of natural sounds like water or birds chirping, for masking the unwanted ones [8].

Obviously, the traditional approach and the soundscape are characterized by elements of complementarity and differences, i.e., interest in different sound sources in any acoustic environment, human responses to sounds and their outcomes, measurement techniques and appropriate choices for management, planning and design [9].

There are many methods for investigating soundscapes, expressly tested for collecting data on human perception and physical and psychoacoustic data about the acoustic environment and context. The definition and the use of different data collection methods are defined in the ISO12913 series. Published in 2014, the first part [10] introduces the key components in soundscape: people, acoustic environment and context, as well as the procedures of data collection and requirements for application. The second part [11] is a sort of “technical specification”, introducing and discussing techniques of interviews and guidelines, as well as an exploration of areas through soundwalks and other tools. In 2019, part 3 [12] has been issued, completing somehow this first standardization process about soundscape and providing guidance on how to analyze data collected in agreement with part 2 standard.

Therefore, this paper has the aim of highlighting how the integration of the two approaches could produce a more thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the environmental noise that is necessary for its management. A peculiarity of this study is represented by the case study, i.e., the main campus of the University of Salerno, in Fisciano, Italy. The campus, indeed, is populated only during the daytime by people that go there for specific purposes, that is, among other activities, attending lectures, studying with colleagues, going to the libraries and working in the laboratories. Some social activities are present as well, in particular in the main canteen and in the small bars located along the campus, and in some aggregation points usually populated by students that meet, chat and enjoy free time. This means that the perception of the soundscape is affected by the need for concentration and attention in places in which studying and working activities are pursued. On the other hand, some places are expected to be more vibrant since they are devoted to free time and social activities.

Starting from these considerations, a resume of the soundscape approach and its use in the urban planning and of the methods for data collection, both physical and psychoacoustic, during a soundwalk are described in Section 2. In Section 3, the methodology adopted at the Fisciano campus of the University of Salerno and the soundwalk details are reported. Results of the application of the methodology are described and discussed critically and in Section 4.

2. Literature Review and Data Collection Methods

The soundscape approach is based on the description of an acoustic environment in its entirety, including its physical characterization and its interaction with people. The first pioneering work on soundscapes was carried out in the 1970s by the musician R.M. Schafer [13] in relation to the musical field and the acoustic ecology. However, its concept is not limited to the areas in which it was initially defined. Several studies, indeed, have been performed in the last years, producing a large literature on the topic in other disciplinary fields, such as physics, acoustics, engineering, architecture, design, urban planning, ecology, social sciences, law, medicine, psychology, sociology, art, human geography, linguistics, based on simulation using specific software and artificial intelligence (see for instance [14,15,16,17,18]). Albeit in different ways and in different quantities, all these disciplines deal with how environments are perceived and, moreover, they try to establish relationships between the physical world and people’s replies. For example, according to Thompson [19], the soundscape is the integration of a physical environment and its perception. In addition, Truax [20] defines it as an environment of sound, emphasizing the way that the sound is perceived and understood by an individual or by society.

The human perception of an acoustic environment depends on several factors that can be grouped into physiological/biological, physical/psychoacoustical, psychological and contextual factors. In spite of an increasing number of studies focused on such factors and several indicators that describe the perception of soundscape quality [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28], it is not very easy to investigate and still hard to find a direct relationship between soundscape perception and acoustic environment.

For the analysis of an acoustic environment, researchers are increasingly investigating the potential of operative tools, i.e., soundscape descriptors and indicators. Such tools are necessary to predict the impacts deriving from the change of the built and natural environment, so researchers should make bigger efforts to work on predictive models for soundscape [29]. Aletta and Kang [30] summarize the main soundscape descriptors and their corresponding indicators. According to them, descriptors indicate “measures of how people perceive the acoustic environment”, whereas indicators are “measures used to predict the value of a soundscape descriptor”. The traditional physical metric allows the evaluation of the sound pressure level that is processed by the human auditory system, but it is not representative of the sensations, the pleasantness and the tonality that the sound transmits. This part deals with the indicators belonging to the branch of psychoacoustics, such as loudness, pitch, sharpness, hue or tonality, roughness, fluctuation strength and sensory pleasantness [31]. Psychoacoustics bridge the gap between physically measurable quantities and subjective evaluations, remembering that, in any case, the final response on the adequacy of a given sound passes through the human auditory system.

The defined indicators are useful for describing the sound signal but are not able to precisely describe the soundscape in its entirety and complexity because it is a dynamically changing entity made up of various sound sources and correspondent relationships. As a consequence, they must be opportunely combined in order to define descriptors for soundscape studies and investigated for predictive models or statistical correlations. According to Aletta and Kang’s literature review in [30], the main descriptors are noise annoyance [32,33,34], pleasantness [35], quietness or tranquility [36,37], perceived music-likeness [38], perceived affective quality [39,40,41], restorativeness [42], soundscape quality [43,44] and appropriateness [45]. They observed that many descriptors tended to focus on quietness constructs, while vibrancy, eventfulness or excitement have received scarce research attention from the modeling and/or prediction perspective. Therefore, these findings claim for further attention on different soundscape descriptors that could have greater relevance in the soundscape approach.

In addition, several papers based on the combination of physical techniques in sound mitigation and perceptual aspects have led to useful solutions. For example, the study of Can and Gauvreau [46] combines the use of physical data, i.e., purely quantitative, and non-physical, visual or even demographic and perceptive data, for the description of a precise urban acoustic environment and the creation of real sound maps. A first connection between the two approaches can be found in the method used for collecting data. The analyses, indeed, were carried out using geo-referenced noise measurements during a series of soundwalks. In this study, they define three indicators able to describe groups of homogeneous urban acoustic environments. Starting from these results, they suggest the possibility to easily choose the optimal points for giving tests and making interviews about the acoustic environment perceived by people.

Other studies were carried out to investigate the relationships between the soundscape and the characteristics that influence the perception of the acoustic environment. Maffei et al. [47] demonstrate the influence that non-auditory factors have on the noise perception of people. They studied physical barriers designed to counteract the spread of noise. Even if these are the most used solutions in environmental noise control, their visual features should also be considered because they influence the perception that individuals have of noise. This study, therefore, was able to assist in an ordinary noise mitigation intervention, such as the installation of noise barriers, concepts of the soundscape approach. Furthermore, Aletta et al. [48] published a study on the ability of green areas to moderate the perception of noise. In very complex environments, like a bicycle path; indeed, the perception of noise depends on a very high number of factors. Among these also, the presence of green elements can influence the perception of tranquility or disturbance. The purpose of the study was to verify whether the presence of greenery as a means of noise mitigation could influence people’s perception of the acoustic environment. The findings were that the audio-visual interactions must be taken into account in the overall evaluation of a place, revealing the importance of using people perception-based approaches, like the soundscape, which plays a fundamental role in the identification of the appropriate interventions.

Some other soundscape applications in university areas demonstrate correlations among the judgment given to the acoustic environment, climate conditions, visual aspects and to the overall environment itself [49] or between objective and subjective noise characterizations [50]. D’Alessandro et al. [49], indeed, highlighted the holistic approach to the soundscape, starting from the consideration that visual features affect the perception of the sonic environment and vice versa. They analyzed the relationship among the objective measurements, the perceived and the visual aspects of a University’s heterogeneous area, with the presence of greenery, water, parking spots and traffic noise, used not only to relax but also to study. The investigation was based on the influence of natural features, visual aspects and thermal conditions on the users’ final judgment by means of the tranquility rating value calculation by comparing winter and summer results. Moreover, in [50], Trombetta Zannin et al. described the characterization of noise pollution by means of objective evaluations, with sound pressure level measurements and noise mapping, and subjective assessments of the sound perception of the population that frequents a university campus in Brazil.

These works, focusing on existing scenarios and their improvements in the acoustic field, have shown that the perception of users can be helpful in understanding the complex problem of noise pollution in urban and educational areas and can influence planning decisions and choices. Other studies, like Nauener Platz in Berlin [51], were designed exclusively with the use of the soundscape approach. Moreover, this project was the winner of the European Soundscape Award in 2012. The aim of the square was to improve the quality of life of the residents, above all elderly and children, by redeveloping an urban park and creating a meeting point for the community. The project was built based on an initial research process that included soundwalks, measurements, acoustic recordings and expert interviews, involving residents in research and decision-making. By combining the obtained data, it was possible to understand the preferences of visitors and to start formulating potential interventions. The use of the soundscape approach from the beginning of the Nauener Platz redevelopment project contributed to obtaining a unique solution that was able to achieve noise mitigation but also satisfies the wishes of the residents.

Resuming, it is possible to highlight that every place must be analyzed considering all its peculiarities, which, however, cannot be described by using only the physical measurements. It is evident that one critical point is the definition of strategies able to provide a feedback loop between physical measurements and stakeholders and to analyze all the collected data correctly.

Methods of Data Collection

As already mentioned in the introduction, a soundwalk is a qualitative method to explore an area with the aim to focus the attention on the perceived sounds or noises of the surrounding environment. Usually, it is guided by a moderator who introduces the participant group along a defined path and instructs the participants according to the ISO 12913-2. This moderator must conduct a series of interviews or give questionnaires to participants and, preferably, organize a discussion session after the soundwalk in order to obtain useful data able to describe and analyze the soundscape. The moderator, or the soundscape analyst, observes and measures participants’ responses based on their perceptions of the acoustic, visual, esthetic, geographical and cultural differences through their comments and reactions. The moderator can also choose to stop in predefined points, where participants should listen to the acoustic environment in silence for a minimum time interval of 3 min, during which they should only listen consciously, and then fill in a specific questionnaire about the stopover. At this stage, the moderator should not rush but allow participants to reflect and complete the questionnaire in the time they need, to obtain data as more realistic as possible. As regards the participant group, ISO 12913-2 suggests a group of at least five participants walking together along a certain path. This procedure must be repeated a sufficient number of times to reach at least 20 independent observations. Furthermore, different walks need similar boundary conditions, such as the reference to a specific period of day or weather conditions. Very often, local experts are invited to participate, i.e., inhabitants and relevant members of the community who have an interest in the soundwalks. People living in the study area, indeed, can provide fundamental information because they unconsciously acquire the most important characteristics of the acoustic environment. This allows researchers, practitioners, policymakers and local authorities to collect and analyze ecologically sound acoustic and perceptual data.

Among the others, the questionnaire is a method of investigation that avoids the direct relationship between the interviewed people and the researcher. Moreover, people can experience investigated places freely and without external influence. The collection of data through questionnaires can also be made in situ, combining it with a soundwalk. Obviously, survey participants should be initially informed about the use of their responses and, at the end of the questionnaire, their privacy is guaranteed. The survey is based on a series of open or closed questions and can be structured in paragraph form, thus giving the researchers the opportunity to investigate the different factors which influence the human perception of the soundscape. Consequently, the questionnaire can be divided into different parts. First, the acoustic environment can be characterized by identifying the audible sound sources and their domination. The questions can show a list of four options associated with the different possible sound sources and a scale of values ranging from “not at all” to “completely dominating”. The second part of the questionnaire is related to the perceived affective quality, which investigates the qualities of the sound perceived by the listeners. In particular, information is sought about the pleasantness, the annoyance, the monotony, the chaos, the liveliness and the tranquility of the environment. In this case, the different characteristics are also associated with the scale of values already introduced previously. It is, therefore, asked to evaluate the surrounding sound environment, using a five-part scale ranging from “excellent” to “very bad” and, finally, it is possible to evaluate the adequacy of the surrounding sound environment.

A further observation of the different methods of collecting data is that everyone answers to the peculiar needs of each specific soundscape analysis and changes according to the types of indicators necessary to perform the analysis. Moreover, each one can work together with others and be utilized for in situ analysis or laboratory research based on the construction of visual scenarios present during the on-site interviews.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methodology

As soundwalks and questionnaires represent tools to describe the perceived or experienced acoustic environment, the measurements of physical parameters, instead, describe quantitatively and objectively the sound pressure levels produced by noise sources present in the environment [47]. The physical data can be acquired with a sound level meter, generally used for environmental noise studies, sound level comparisons, sound isolation and propagation modeling.

In order to correlate the perceived acoustic environment and the real physical one, this study is based on the integration of the traditional (quantitative physical measurements) and the qualitative (perceptual attributes) approaches (Figure 1). This mixed approach is quite common in soundscape studies since it allows to include the users’ perception in the assessment of the environment under study. Consequently, at the investigation points of a soundwalk, on one hand, it is possible to perform measurements of the sound continuous equivalent level (L_eq), and, on the other hand, participants can fill the questionnaire. The outputs will be the measures of L_eq and the people evaluation of every noise source and their soundscape perception at each stop point. Moreover, it is possible to defines the words that are associated with the stop point by the participant. The integration of these qualitative outputs with the measured continuous equivalent level allows an overall evaluation of the acoustic environment and the soundscape assessment.

3.2. Case Study and Soundwalk Details

The methodology was applied at the Fisciano campus of the University of Salerno (Italy) and partially presented in [52].

A soundwalk was organized by the Applied Physics Research Group of the Department of Civil Engineer on 8 March 2019. The university campus is located in Fisciano, a little town, a few kilometers away from the city of Salerno. The campus area is just in the nearby of two important regional highways (Figure 2a). The chosen path (Figure 2b) covered a total length of about 2.6 km, from one of the vehicle entrances of the university campus to one of the most crowded areas (nearby the canteen and the terminal bus), passing through the central road axes. Along the path, six points have been chosen (Figure 2b) in order to identify different acoustic environments, visual characteristics and dominant sound sources (

Table 1. Descriptions of the locations selected for survey and Leq measurements.

Location	Description	Picture of the Site during the Soundwalk
Point 1	Vehicles entrance and parking lots
Point 2	Main park, close to the scientific library
Point 3	Rectorate square, close to the main library
Point 4	Central square, close to a fountain and a bar (vibrant area)
Point 5	External area, outside building F (close to HVAC plants)
Point 6	Way to the bus station and canteen

). The path was covered in about 80 min.

As regards the participants social/demographical features, some literature studies suggest that age and education level are two features influencing the sound preference significantly [53,54]. In this application, a group of 22 participants was chosen from a list of volunteered students. Even though students are not effectively inhabitants of the area, they could be considered as “local experts”, because they factually join, every day, the campus life. In order to have quite heterogeneous information, the process selection was made, and the number of male and female participants was equal, as well as their ages (in the 19–26 years old range). Personal data and questionnaire responses were collected anonymously, respecting all privacy rules.

In the context of this work, specific questionnaires were drawn up according to ISO 12913-2, in Italian, focusing on the investigation of elements as the perceived loudness, pleasantness, tranquility and appropriateness of the sound sources identified by “listeners” of the participation group in that specific place (“point of investigation”). The issue of translation is an ongoing study in the soundscape community. In particular, a standardization process is pursued by the soundscape attribute translation project (SATP) initiative, as reported in [55]. Unfortunately, at the time of the survey, this paper was not yet published, and the authors did a personal translation. By comparing the authors’ translation with the proposal reported in [55], only three words are slightly different, as it can be highlighted looking at the questionnaire template reported in Appendix A.

The first part of the questionnaire required the characterization of the acoustic environment by identifying which sound sources were audible and how dominant they were. Sound sources were divided into four main groups: traffic noise (deriving from transportation, for instance, cars, trains and planes, among the others); natural sounds (wind, water and birds, among the others) and sounds due to humans (for instance conversation, laughing, children playing and footsteps), other sounds deriving from sources not included in the other clusters (for instance sirens, constructions, and industry). The second part of the questionnaire was related to the perceived quality, i.e., to the investigation of the qualities of the sounds perceived by listeners in the environment. The selected features of the soundscape were pleasantness, annoyance, monotony, chaoticity, liveliness, quietness, and the respondents were asked to rank their agreement on each of them. In addition, four questions about loudness, unpleasantness, appropriateness and will to visit that place again were asked, adopting an evaluation scale from 1 to 5.

According to the methodology described in the previous section, at each point of the investigation, the participants were asked to find a comfortable position (sitting or standing) to relax and concentrate on the sounds present in the environment. The hearing phase lasted approximately 3 min. During this time range, data measurements were performed by means of the sound level meter, placed in proximity of the participant’s group. In particular, in this study, measurements were performed by using a certified first-class sound level meter Fusion (produced by 01 dB, ACOEM France SAS, Limonest, France) and data were processed with the data post-processing software supplied by the manufacturer (dBTrait). The measurement time was set to 3 min. The fast time constant and A-weighting curve were applied to the sound pressure level, which was integrated over a 100 ms interval, giving in the output the “short L_eq”. The linear spectra (min, max and mean) were recorded in each point as well. The calibration was performed before and after the measurement campaign. At the end of the measurement, the participants were asked to fill questionnaires regarding their perception. Then, after taking some pictures of the site, the group moved to the next point.

4. Results and Discussion

The soundwalk was successfully completed and the data collected, both physical (i.e., sound pressure levels and spectra) and subjective (i.e., questionnaire responses), were analyzed. Results of the sound level meter measurements are reported in Figure 3 and the continuous sound equivalent levels evaluated in the 3 min time range are resumed in

Table 2. Leq measurements in the six points selected.

Measurement	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6
Leq (dBA)	55.2	53.3	48.3	57.0	68.2	55.4

, for each point recorded. Mean spectra are reported in Figure 4. It is immediate to notice that Point 5 has a completely different dynamic of the sound level. That point was indeed affected by the presence of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) plants located over the building. This caused the presence of a quite stationary noise, around 68 dBA, that fully covered other sounds and made it very difficult to chat and communicate. Due to this problem, the area of point 5 is usually not dedicated to standing and meeting, even if it is close to coffee machines and other services. Furthermore, the spectrum of Point 5 is significantly higher than the others, especially in the mid-frequency range.

The questionnaire results are shown in the following figures. In particular, Figure 5 presents for each point, respectively, the score of each noise source. As results suggest, volunteers’ experience was in agreement with physical measurements. In point 1, for example, traffic noise was expected to be the main perceived sound source, and questionnaires confirmed that.

After this preliminary analysis, data were elaborated according to the methods and tools provided by part 3 of the ISO12913 standard [12]. In particular, perceptual attributes data, which are more difficult to manipulate because influenced by affective responses, can be represented in a two-dimensional plane where the main dimension is related to how pleasant or not the environment was judged (pleasantness) and the second dimension is related to the amount of human and other activities (eventfulness), instead.

If pleasantness and eventfulness axes are taken as perpendicular, further labeling corresponding to human perceptions can be arranged to two additional axes rotated 45°on the same plane, representing chaotic environments versus calm ones, and monotonous environments versus vibrant. According to this proposed model, vibrant soundscapes could be both pleasant and eventful, chaotic soundscapes could be both eventful and unpleasant, monotonous soundscapes both annoying and uneventful, and finally, calm soundscapes are both uneventful and pleasant. The average results were calculated and are reported in

Table 3. Average score of the soundscape features in each point.

Measurement	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6
Pleasant (Piacevole)	3.1	3.9	3.7	3.5	1.1	3.2
Chaotic (Caotico)	2.9	2.7	2.6	3.3	3.6	3.4
Vibrant (Vivace/Vibrante)	2.3	3.1	3.2	3.8	2.2	3.8
Uneventful (Non movimentato)	2.2	2.5	2.5	1.8	3.1	1.8
Calm (Tranquillo)	2.9	3.7	3.5	2.6	1.3	2.5
Annoying (Fastidioso)	2.7	2.1	2.1	2.5	4.9	2.9
Eventful (Movimentato)	3.5	3.5	3.4	4.2	2.6	4.2
Monotonous (Monotono)	3.5	2.8	2.7	2.1	4.3	2.3

. In addition, a circumplex model 2D plane plot, according to ISO TS 12913:3, is reported in Figure 6.

Figure 7 shows the scores related to the last four questions of the questionnaire, and Figure 8 describes the six points of investigation with different keywords that were very representatives of the sound environment according to the participants.

Comparing all the results, it is possible to make further considerations. Indeed, in some of the points, other types of sound, like natural ones, were not strong enough to mask the unwanted ones. Point 5 was affected by HVAC plant noise, and it was perceived as highly unpleasant, as the high and stationary measured pressure levels suggest. In the authors’ opinion, point 2 gives practical evidence of the efficiency of the method. Even if the pressure level were high, and even if the nearby highway could cause annoyance, the soundscape was perceived as good and relaxing. Natural sounds, thanks also to the greenery, mask the traffic ones, making no interventions necessary. Points 3, 4 and 6 present similar aspects. The soundscapes of these locations were perceived, indeed, as vibrant and pleasant, thanks to the high presence of anthropic sounds, such as, among the others, chatting, laughing and footsteps.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, an application of the soundscape approach, performed on the campus of the University of Salerno, was presented. The soundwalk was organized according to the reference ISO. The main scope of the application was to compare the qualitative results obtained using the soundscape approach with the quantities obtained measuring sound pressure levels. This analysis allows, from a practical point of view, the comprehension of how sound levels measured by a sound level meter correspond to different perceptions of users. This kind of correlation study has been demonstrated, in literature, to be very useful to assist the urban planner, especially in the understanding of necessary mitigation interventions.

All data obtained from the questionnaire and sound level meter were elaborated, and results were compared. Among the most relevant results, it is interesting to underline that the main green park (point 2) of the University campus presented a perceived positive soundscape, even though noise from the nearby highway was present. Similar conditions occurred in vibrant areas of the campus (point 4), in which the interviews highlighted a good perception of the soundscape, even with quite high sound pressure levels. In order to determine the pleasantness and eventfulness of the university environment based on perceived affective quality responses, a graphical representation was done according to ISO TS 12913:3. Results show how points 4 and 6 are perceived positively as vibrant and eventful, points 2 and 3 as vibrant and pleasant, point 1 as annoying and chaotic and point 5 as monotonous and annoying. The results of the human perception well describe the locations and give an accent on the fact that the presence of natural environments positively influences the good perception of the soundscape. Points 2 and 3, in fact, are surrounded by natural vegetation and points 4 and 6 by fountains and little green areas. On the other hand, points 1 and 5 are characterized by a significant presence of buildings, plants and cars, which visually does not support a good perception of the environment, emphasizing the unpleasantness of the soundscape. Thus, our results seem to confirm how visual experiences can influence sound perception.

These results demonstrate how the approach to base the design of a place taking into account the perception of people, as well as physical parameters, can ensure many positive effects, in economic terms, quality of life, spatial identity, as well as better feedback from the population. The soundscape approach, indeed, thanks to the diversity of the data collected (qualitative and quantitative), can give important information on the acoustic environment depending on the needs of the project or the research question and should be integrated for a holistic understanding of the soundscape to improve the acoustic environment.

Future research will be focused on trying to draw other important information related to the influence of the choice of local experts, including in the participants’ list professors, lecturers, admin staff, technicians, etc., or considering the influence of the seasonal variation on the general perception since the campus is populated only during daytime and there is a typical seasonality in classes attendance, exams and vacation.