See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327704016

Soundwalking

Chapter · September 2018

DOI: 10.4324/9781315722191-28

CITATIONS READS

3 3,002

1 author:

Frauke Behrendt
Eindhoven University of Technology
36 PUBLICATIONS 708 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligent Transport Solutions for Social Inclusion (ITSSI) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frauke Behrendt on 17 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 24
SOUNDWALKING
Frauke Behrendt

Introduction
Soundwalks offer an intriguing combination of simplicity and complexity. By focussing on the
simple act of walking and listening, soundwalks create the potential for opening our ears, bodies
and minds to the sounds within us, around us and the soundscape of the world. Soundwalks are
a mobile listening experience and provide a shift in attention that can change how we attend
to the world. On many soundwalks I participated in or on those I guided myself, I experienced
how this simple practice can have a profound impact on those who soundwalk.
Westerkamp’s seminal text on soundwalking (first published in 1974, revised in 2001) defines
soundwalks as “any excursion whose main purpose is listening to the environment” (Westerkamp
2001). In a later article, she reflects on soundwalking in the context of our media-saturated lives:

This simple activity of walking, listening and soundmaking, invariably has the effect
of not only re-grounding people in their community but also inspiring them about it,
about creating a more balanced life between the global attraction of the computer and
the local contact and touch with live human beings and reality.
(Westerkamp 2011: 12)

Westerkamp’s practice comprises soundwalks with audio recording but also unmediated
soundwalks “an exploration of our ear/environment relationship, unmediated by microphones,
headphones and recording equipment”.The relationship between walking, listening, soundscape,
and media is at the heart of debates and practices around soundwalks.
With Schafer and Truax, Westerkamp was part of the 1960s-founded World Soundscape
Project. The project and its key figures are widely credited and cited as the “inventors” of
soundwalks, as part of their considerations of soundscapes and acoustic ecology. McCartney gives
a good overview of soundwalking in the tradition and context of acoustic ecology (McCartney
2004). Schafer and Truax’s well-used online handbook defines soundwalks as “a form of active
participation in the soundscape” with the purpose of “encourag[ing] the participant to listen
discriminatively, and moreover, to make critical judgments about the sounds heard and their
contribution to the balance or imbalance of the sonic environment” (Schafer and Truax, n.d.).
For Truax, soundwalks are “the most direct aural involvement possible with a soundscape” and “a

249
 Frauke Berendt

good practice to open one’s ears” (Truax 2012: 196). Schafer differentiates between soundwalks
and listening walks: “A listening walk” features “concentration on listening” while a “soundwalk
is an exploration of the soundscape of an area using a score [a map] as a guide” (Schafer 1994:
212–213), that is, a pre-planned, or composed activity.
Westerkamp, Schafer, Truax, and other colleagues at the World Soundscape Project audio
often recorded their soundwalks. Truax argues for soundwalks without mobile recording
technologies: “Soundwalking is best done with the only intent being listening, without the
distraction of operating a recorder.” However, this practice is then followed up with soundwalks
that feature mobile recording technologies – “[a]fter various soundwalks have been completed,
the listener can make a more informed choice about recording, along with what is the best
way to represent the soundscape through recording”, and then post-production – “[l]ater in the
studio, the question as to what is a reasonable representation of the soundscape can be judged
based on that experience” (Truax 2012: 196).
McCartney’s (2014) research is key for the intersection of soundwalking and sound
recording, as well as for considerations of artistic approaches to soundwalking and working with
soundwalk material in the artistic and musical context (for example installations). McCartney’s
definition is: “[a] soundwalk is an exploration of a location through walking, in which listening
becomes the primary mode of attention” (McCartney 2012).
Walking is a key element of soundwalks. Chapman (2013) draws out connections between
mobility studies and soundscape studies, with the former focussing on movement more
generally, and the latter specifically on walking, and specifically soundwalks. Both mobility
studies and soundwalks use movement as conceptual tool. Soundwalking “stipulates a con-
sistent re-localisation of our listening perspective as paramount to coming to terms with the
sonic character of an environment” (Chapman 2013). Listening in relation to other modes
of mobility than walking is an area that has attracted far less attention than walking, but
there is some artistic and research engagement with other forms of mobility such as cycling
(McCartney 2004) and driving. Listening is of course not restricted to walking, and this mode
can be replaced or supplemented with other forms of human mobility, such as wheeling or
cycling. These mobile listening activities are then sometimes called sound rides. The focus
on walking raises issues around accessibility and diversity (McCartney 2014), as our acoustic
environment is experienced through a range of mobilities, and their associated politics of
mobilities.
Almost all research published on soundwalks is from Western researchers, artists and
institutions, which is reflected in the approach in terms of the cultural, social, political, and
economic context. Most publications on soundwalking are from Canada, France, the UK,
and Germany. This chapter only considers publications in English. In the mid-to-late 2000s,
publications considering soundwalks started to appear in a range of fields, largely with a
view to developing or using it as a qualitative research method, often in conjunction with
other methods or tools. Alongside publications in the area of soundscape research where
soundwalking was traditionally discussed (for example Journal of Soundscape Ecology), these
include cultural geography (Butler 2006), urban planning (Adams et al. 2008), social
science (Hall, Lashua, and Coffey 2008), and feminist theory (Mohr 2007). The early 2010s,
with the emergence of a more robust field of sound studies and associated journals, saw
considerations of recording and listening in relation to soundwalking (Reyes 2012) and also
publications with a more media and/or computing approach (Paquette and McCartney 2012;
Altavilla and Tanaka 2012). In addition to this well-known Western tradition of soundwalking,
there are other histories and practices of soundwalking that emerged in other locations and
at other times (see McCartney 2014).

250
 Soundwalking

A media-inclusive definition of soundwalking

Soundwalks combine a specific form of human mobility – walking – with a specific way of
sensory attention – listening, and do so in a variety of ways and with a range of purposes, while
often featuring elements of talking, silence, and media. This definition proposed here is wide,
including mobile listening practices where walkers wear headphones to listen to or engage with
sound from media devices in addition to listening to their soundscape. Soundwalking can be
understood as research and practice that is not about sound but in sound, as well as not about
walking but in walking. Soundwalking is a spatio-temporal, embodied, situated, multi-sensory
and mobile practice. Soundwalks are used across a wide range of academic disciplines as well as
artistic/creative practices, including as method, tool, and methodology. The concept and history
of soundwalks is closely related to the soundscape concept, the history of acoustic ecology
and considerations of listening. Over time, soundwalks have been considered and used by an
increasing range of research and practice fields, including sound art, media studies, sound studies,
urban planning, social science.
While the key components of a soundwalk are listening to sounds and being mobile by
walking, there is great variety when it comes to the detail of these components such as the
location, length, and route of the walk, as well as the sounds focussed on, the group size of the
listeners, the ration of walking and being stationary, the use of media for recording or playing
back sound, the amount of talking, and of course the aim of the soundwalk.
As this chapter will show, there is a range of elements that feature in soundwalks in various
combinations, often describing a range of options. On the one hand, soundwalks often feature
silent elements, if not the entire walk is conducted in silence. On the other hand, reflective
discussion is often a key part of soundwalks, in between silent elements or at the end of a
silent walk. Interestingly, discussions around social and class aspects of “noise” and “silence”
(Bijsterveld 2008) are not always considered in discussion around soundwalking. There is a
distinction between soundwalking as an expert practice – for examples as research method
or as artistic practice – and a more democratic understanding of soundwalking as something
everyone can do, a more participatory, non-expert approach. Soundwalks can be understood as
individual practice or as group experience. Audio recording can be a key aspect of soundwalks
or not feature at all. A soundwalk can be an end in itself or a means for something else. It can be
artistic and creative or used as a research method to measure experience. Soundwalks can take
place in busy urban environments or in remote landscapes. Those on a soundwalk could wear
headphones (listening to their own audio recordings or to other audio) or not. They could add
sounds to the soundscape in real-time through talking or with instruments, or aim to minimise
their own sounds. Soundwalks can have a pre-described route or an improvised one. They can
be one-off events or repeated activities, at the same time of the day/week/year or with variation.
This chapter considers the educational and pedagogical aspects of soundwalks, soundwalks as
method for urban planning as well as the artistic and qualitative aspects of soundwalks, followed
by a conclusion.

Educational soundwalks
The educational and pedagogic aspects of soundwalks are present in all practices and discussion
around it. In addition, there are specific considerations of the various pedagogical purposes of
soundwalks.Tinkle considers soundwalking to be part of sound pedagogy (Tinkle 2015), Dietze
(2000) discusses projects with school students, and Butler (2007) provides an early consideration
of the use of locative audio for teaching. Reyes (2012) discusses the use of soundwalks with sound

251
 Frauke Berendt

recording as educational practice, where students walk with headphones and microphones and
listen to the sound recorded by a microphone in real-time.The EARS 2 (2016) project provides
very useful and accessible instructions and teaching material for soundwalking, aimed at a
secondary school teachers and students as audience, but with wider use for all those considering
to use soundwalks in their teaching.

Urban planning and soundwalks

Semidor wrote one of the first detailed accounts on using soundwalking for architecture and
urban planning, is widely cited, and has remained active in this area, for example through
the COST Action TD0804 Soundscapes of European Cities and Landscapes. Semidor’s
(2006) method is an autoethnographic approach to soundwalking where the researcher is the
soundwalker that also records the walk with (binaural) field audio recordings, photographs, and
fieldnotes (Semidor 2006). Many studies have been influenced by her method for soundwalking
in the context of architecture and urban design.
Soundwalks can be used for “evaluating urban soundscapes” (Jeon, Hong, and Lee 2013).
Jeon, Hong and Lee provide a good overview of soundwalks in the context of other methods
for evaluating soundscapes. They propose the method “individual soundwalk” where individual
experts walk in a specified area with a start and end point (but no prescribed route); they are
equipped with an annotated map indicating “major soundscape elements”, select their own
stopping points for evaluating their soundscape with a questionnaire, and spend one hour for
their walk (Jeon, Hong, and Lee 2013). Their paper concludes that “the individual soundwalk
procedure has advantages for measuring diverse subjective responses and for obtaining the
perceived elements of the urban soundscape” (Jeon, Hong, and Lee 2013).
Augoyard’s “Qualitative listening in motion” method uses walking, environmental recordings,
and interviews along a route chosen by the interviewee: “The interviewee picks up sounds with
the microphone on the extension arm and comments to the interviewer on what he or she is
listening to and recording” (Uimonen 2011: 258).
Soundwalking is an important aspect of “demonstrating the importance of individual
experience in assessing the soundscapes of urban environments” to move beyond noise abatement
and towards a more complex understanding of urban soundscapes and associated design and
policies (Adams et al. 2006: 2385). Building on this, the research team on the Positive Sound-
scapes Project developed soundwalking as a sociological method and as a tool that could be used
in urban planning and associated disciplines (M.D. Adams et al. 2008).This research team reports
detailed results of their mixed-method approach including “structured soundwalks” and explain
how soundwalks can be used at various stages of the research process (M.D. Adams, Davies, and
Bruce 2009). They also produced a report for a UK government agency (DEFRA) that lists
soundwalks as one of the methods for soundscape assessments (Payne, Davies, and Adams 2009)
and this report also includes an extensive literature review. Adams et al. give an overview of
using the soundwalk as methodology for researchers and participants: “Some have employed it
as a means through which the researcher immerses themselves into the urban soundscape while
others have used it as a way of engaging others into the practice of listening to and describing
the city” (Adams et al. 2008: 2).
Adams and his colleagues use soundwalking as evaluative method and understand this as
“active form of participation in the soundscape, the essential purpose of which is to encour-
age participants to listen discriminately and to make critical judgments about the sounds
heard and their contribution to the balance or imbalance of the sonic environment” (Adams
et al. 2008: 4). Their own method involves walking a specific route (featuring a range of

252
 Soundwalking

urban features) in silence, with stops in each of the “typical” locations (such as a square) where
a semi-structured interview are used to discuss questions about the locations and their sounds
(Adams et al. 2008: 5). This is used in conjunction with pre- and post-soundwalk questions. The
researchers argue this method makes it “possible for the researchers and the participants to have a
shared sensory experience of the urban environments under investigation, thus enabling a deeper
and more meaningful semi-structured interview to take place” (Adams et al. 2008: 6). The com-
bination of walking and focussed listening “was significant in enabling a more far-reaching explo-
ration of the responses made about spatiality and the relationship between the built environment,
the urban infrastructure, the design of the city, and its soundscapes” (Adams et al. 2008: 6).
Several methods work with soundwalking methods that include talking while walking and
listening where “participants were allowed to communicate with each other thus interacting
with and adding to the soundscape”, facilitating a real-time soundscape evaluation “rather than
reflecting upon a memory of it in a post-walk interview” (Payne, Davies, and Adams 2009:
41). Thibaud and colleagues developed a recording-based soundwalking method called “Com-
mented City Walks” that aims to “gain access to the in situ sensory experience of passers-by”
(Thibaud 2013). Participants walk and listen while also describing their experience orally in
real-time (recorded). This concept (and detailed research protocol) is based on three key aspects:
studying perception in-situ, working with the close link between perception and motion, as well
as using the sensory perception in-situ as trigger for verbalization.

Soundwalks as qualitative and artistic method

In addition to the context of urban planning, soundwalking is also used as qualitative research
method in various ways. Hall et al. (2008) give a good overview of a range of approaches that use
sound and walking and are relevant for social science research.These are discussed as alternatives
to qualitative interviews, with a focus on walking-talking approaches such as the go-along or
the mobile interview, while their “walking tours” method draws on soundwalks and interviews
(Hall, Lashua, and Coffey 2008). Davies et al. (2013) give a detailed account of using soundwalks
in conjunction with interviews as research method.
Soundwalks are an important method and methodology for qualitative research across disci-
plines and “the potential of this medium to create flowing, multi-sensory and embodied ways
for social and cultural geographers to research the outside environment” (Butler 2006: 889)
is increasingly recognised by researchers. Butler observes that soundwalks are also “useful for
presenting site-specific cultural geography to the public in an accessible and inclusive way”
(Butler 2006: 889). McCartney suggests that “[s]oundwalks followed by conversations about the
walks provide a way for people to think through the cultural, musical, political, sonic and social
meanings of everyday sounds in particular places” (2012: 2). O’Keeffe’s work provides a detailed
account of using a combination of mobile sound methods, including autoethnographic and
participant soundwalks (O’Keeffe 2015). Mohr (2007) discusses soundwalks as part of the artistic
process from a dance/choreography perspective on the listening body.
Uimonen describes a combination of soundwalks and qualitative interviews and/or post-
walk surveys. He proposes the method “recorded listening walk” that “encompasses not only
the recording of sounds, but also editing and discussion” (Uimonen 2011: 256).The focus is not
on the recording as product but “the act of recording itself: listening to environmental sounds
and documenting the thoughts they evoke” (Uimonen 2011: 257). Uimonen discusses the use
of media technologies and how they construct electroacoustic communities, for example by
combining soundwalks, recordings and the Internet and/or online/GPS mapping technologies.
These are often soundscape projects that involve some soundwalking and they tend to be

253
 Frauke Berendt

more “inclusive” in terms of understanding a range of media and online technologies as part
of them.
Drever (2008) discusses the use of soundwalking for artists and creative ends as well as for
social science research. He gives a musical-artistic approach to soundwalks (and towards consid-
ering their routes) as “a subtle, transformative, personal, sensitive practice, whilst simultaneously
being a highly social analytical sound audit and ritualistic auditory experience” (Drever 2008).
He discusses the support – “[t]he group also provides support for one another, helping maintain
the discipline of focused listening” – and performance aspects of the group element of sound-
walking: “[t]here is of course a strong performance aspect to a group of silent people walking
down a street slowly in a crocodile” (Drever 2008). Drever also stresses the importance of the
leader in taking away practical and safety concerns (for example around the route) to facilitate
listening focus: “The role of the leader here is fundamental, taking on all the daily concerns of
timekeeping and navigation, leaving the walkers the erstwhile unprecedented luxury of focusing
on listening” (Drever 2008). This is confirmed by McCartney: “[t]he work of the soundwalk
leader is crucial in designing structures for activities, suggesting listening strategies, and leading
discussions” (McCartney 2012).
Butler combines a sound art and cultural geography perspective to consider soundwalk-
ing. He discusses a range of artistic examples, including Cardiff ’s work and more commercial
examples such as soundwalk.com. Butler has a wide understanding of soundwalks and discusses
a range of media in relation to and as part of soundwalking, contributing a useful discussion
around engagement with the public and memories through soundwalks (Butler 2006).
The artist Janet Cardiff uses the term “audio walk” rather than soundwalk. Other common
terms for audio walks are audio trails, sound trails, and some also include audio guides and sound
guides. McCartney states that “audio walks share with soundwalks their emphasis on sonic expe-
riences of particular places, but there are some significant differences in concepualization and
practice” (McCartney 2014: 228). However, the wide definition of soundwalks proposed in this
chapter (see introduction) also includes media-rich forms of soundwalks such as Cardiff ’s audio
walks (see Batista and Lesky 2015; Nedelkopoulou 2011). This means soundwalking includes
listening to “added” sounds (also those activated through GPS, for example Rueb’s work, see
Rueb) and listening to things that are not usually in the range of human auditory perception,
such as Kubisch’s “Electrical Walks” where the audience listens to the sound of electromagnetic
fields of their surroundings (Kubisch 2016).
This wider definition embraces a range of media engagement as part of soundwalking to
move beyond the distinction McCartney makes in terms of how people pay attention to their
soundscape in relation to media (McCartney 2014: 229). This chapter argues that listening to
additional audio (for example via headphones) does not prevent engagement with the current
soundscape around the listener, as is often argued. Hearing these “added” sounds can in fact lead
to listening to and engagement with the “existing” soundscape (Behrendt 2012).
Butler introduces the term “memoryscapes” for “outdoor trails that use recorded sound and
spoken memory played on a personal stereo or mobile media to experience places in new
ways” (Butler 2007). This focus on memories of the past in sound and audio walks is shared
by Schine who “explores how the production of memory and act of remembering are evoked
during the process of memory walks (or soundwalks) as a way of understanding and engaging
with the world” (Schine 2016), drawing on interesting research on walking and memory recall.
This chapter’s wide definition of soundwalks also includes these more narrative and memory/
history-related forms of media-rich walks.
Akio Suzuki uses offline media for his series “Oto-date” soundwalks where the artist leaves
ear/feet-shaped stencils on the ground around town to mark a listening route for the audience

254
 Soundwalking

(Lacey 2016). At the other end of the spectrum in terms of media are soundwalks that are
entirely online and do not require “traditional” walking. Ferrington (2002) gives an overview
of early online soundwalks and a more recent discussion of online soundmaps (Mechtley, Cook,
and Spanias 2013) also considers soundwalks. In addition to these web-based soundwalks, there
are also discussions of virtual reality soundwalks (Signorelli 2013, 2014), and discussions of
sound in relation to walking in computer games (Collins 2013). In these instances, the walking
is not done by the physical body of the participant, but by a virtual body or avatar. This might
stretch the definition of the soundwalk in terms of the “walking” but is still part of the broad
understanding of the practice proposed in this chapter.

Conclusion
The wide range of soundwalking practices and discussions presented throughout the chapter
show how soundwalks are used in a wide range of academic and artistic ways. Pedagogical and
educational aspects of soundwalks are at the heart of the practice and help to spread the word
about them further. Urban planning is an example of how the practice of soundwalking has
been used as a more formal method or tool in the context of planning, design and policy. The
qualitative and artistic aspects of soundwalks illustrate the diversity of creative and academic
practices around soundwalking.
Soundwalks are also used and discussed in the context of health (Nazemi et al. 2013). The
pace of relaxed walking is deemed important in terms of its relation to the heartbeat (McCartney
2014: 213). The slow pace of a soundwalk and the attention to the body and the environment
that is fostered by walking and listening also lends itself to understanding soundwalking as a
mindful activity with health and wellbeing implications. Here, we return to Westerkamp who
observes “[t]o walk in a group without talking is a rare opportunity in this day and age where
few of us engage in spiritual worship and meditation” (Westerkamp 2011: 13). The context of
health and wellbeing is important for the future research agenda of soundwalking.
This chapter proposed a broad understanding of “soundwalks”, both in terms of the “sound”
and in terms of the “walking” that could both include media-aspects.This points towards a focus
on media for a future “soundwalking” research agenda. This could include further explorations
of soundwalking in relation to computer games, virtual reality, locative games, augmented reality
etc. The broad understanding of soundwalking proposed in this chapter highlights the intersec-
tion of listening, walking and media. The constantly evolving world of media media informs,
shapes and changes our practices and experiences of walking, listening and interaction with
soundscapes. For soundwalks, it is the interplay between media, walking and listening that opens
our ears, bodies and minds to the sounds within us, around us, and the soundscape of the world.

Bibliography
Adams, Mags, Trevor Cox, Gemma Moore, Ben Croxford, Mohamed Refaee, and Steve Sharples. 2006.
“Sustainable Soundscapes: Noise Policy and the Urban Experience.” Urban Studies 43 (13): 2385–98.
doi:10.1080/00420980600972504.
Adams, Mags D., William J. Davies, and Neil Spencer Bruce. 2009. “Soundscapes: An Urban Planning
Process Map.” Inter.Noise. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/2465/.
Adams, M.D., N.S. Bruce, W.J. Davies, R. Cain, P. Jennings, A. Carlyle, P. Cusack, K. Hume, and C. Plack.
2008. “Soundwalking as a Methodology for Understanding Soundscapes.” In Proc. Institute of Acoustics,
30: 1–7. Reading. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/2461/.
Altavilla, Alessandro and Atau Tanaka. 2012. “The Quiet Walk: Sonic Memories and Mobile Cartography.”
Proc. of Sound and Music Computing Conference (SMC), 157–62.

255
 Frauke Berendt

Batista, Anamarija and Carina Lesky. 2015. “Sidewalk Stories: Janet Cardiff ’s Audio-Visual Excursions.”
Word & Image 31 (4): 515–23. doi:10.1080/02666286.2015.1053044.
Behrendt, Frauke. 2012. “GPS Sound Walks, Ecotones and Edge Species.pdf.” Soundscape 12 (1): 25–28.
Bijsterveld, Karin. 2008. Mechanical Sound: Technology, Culture, and Public Problems of Noise in the Twentieth
Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Butler, Toby. 2006. “A Walk of Art: The Potential of the Sound Walk as Practice in Cultural Geography.”
Social & Cultural Geography 7 (6): 889–908. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00017.x.
———. 2007. “Memoryscape: How Audio Walks Can Deepen Our Sense of Place by Integrating Art, Oral
History and Cultural Geography.”Geography Compass 1 (3):360–72.doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00017.x.
Chapman, Owen. 2013. “Sound Moves : Intersections of Popular Music Studies, Mobility Studies
and Soundscape Studies .” Wi. Journal of Mobile Media 8 (1). http://wi.mobilities.ca/sound-moves-
intersections-of-popular-music-studies-mobility-studies-and-soundscape-studies/.
Collins, Karen. 2013. Playing with Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davies, William J., Mags D. Adams, Neil S. Bruce, Rebecca Cain, Angus Carlyle, Peter Cusack, Deborah
Hall, et al. 2013. “Perception of Soundscapes: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” Applied Acoustics 74 (2).
Elsevier Ltd: 224–31. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.05.010.
Dietze, Lena. 2000.“Learning Is Living Acoustic Ecology as Pedagogical Ground. A Report on Experience.”
The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 1 (1): 20–22.
Drever, John. 2008. Silent Soundwalking : An Urban Pedestrian Soundscape Methodology. See https://research.
gold.ac.uk/8655/1/aia-daga13_Drever_soundwalking_paper.pdf
EARS 2. 2016. “Soundwalks.” Accessed May 12. http://ears2.dmu.ac.uk/learning-object/soundwalks/.
Ferrington, Gary. 2002. “Soundwalking the Internet.” The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 3 (1): 34.
Hall, Tom, Brett Lashua, and Amanda Coffey. 2008. “Sound and the Everyday in Qualitative Research.”
Qualitative Inquiry 14 (6): 1019–40. doi:10.1177/1077800407312054.
Jeon, Jin Yong, Joo Young Hong, and Pyoung Jik Lee. 2013. “Soundwalk Approach to Identify
Urban Soundscapes Individually.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134 (1): 803–12.
doi:10.1121/1.4807801.
Kubisch, Christina. 2016. “Electrical Walks.” Accessed July 29. www.christinakubisch.de/en/works/
electrical_walks.
Lacey, Jordan. 2016. Sonic Rupture.A Practice-Led Approach to Urban Soundscape Design. Bloomsbury Academic.
McCartney, Andra. 2004. “What Is a Sound Ecologist to Do?” The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 5 (2): 8–9.
———. 2012. “Meaningful Listening through Soundwalks.” In Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies
Network Conference, 1–5. Stockholm.
———. 2014. “Soundwalking: Creative Moving Environmental Sound Narratives.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Mobile Music Studies. Volume 2, edited by Sumanth Gopinath and Jason Stanyeck, 212–37.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mechtley, Brandon, Perry Cook, and Andreas Spanias. 2013. “Sound Mapping on the Web: Current
Solutions and Future Directions.” Proceedings of the Symposium on Acoustic Ecology.
Mohr, Hope. 2007. “Listening and Moving in the Urban Environment.” Women & Performance: A Journal of
Feminist Theory 17 (2): 185–203. doi:10.1080/07407700701387325.
Nazemi, Mark, Maryam Mobini, Diane Gromala, and Tyler Kinnear. 2013. “Soundscapes : A Prescription
for Managing Anxiety in a Clinical Setting.” ACM CHI. Paris: France.
Nedelkopoulou, Eirini. 2011. “Walking Out on Our Bodies Participation as Ecstasis in Janet Cardiff ’s
Walks.” Performance Research 16 (4): 117–23. doi:10.1080/13528165.2011.606058.
O’Keeffe, Linda. 2015. “Thinking through New Methodologies. Sounding out the City with Teenagers.”
Qualitative Sociology Review 11 (1): 6–32.
Paquette, David, and Andra McCartney. 2012. “Soundwalking and the Bodily Exploration of Places.”
Canadian Journal of Communication 37 (1): 135–45. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=ufh&AN=75262594&site=ehost-live.
Payne, Sarah R., Dr. William J. Davies, and Dr. Mags D. Adams. 2009. Research into the Practical and Policy
Applications of Soundscape Concepts and Techniques in Urban Areas (NANR 200). http://usir.salford.
ac.uk/27343/1/Payne_et_al_Soundscapes_Defra_2009.pdf.
Reyes, Ian. 2012. “Mediating a Soundwalk: An Exercise in Claireaudience.” International Journal of Listening
26 (2): 98–101. doi:10.1080/10904018.2012.678096.
Rueb, Teri. “Teri Rueb.” www.terirueb.net/i_index.html.
Schafer, R. Murray. 1994. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Rochester,VT:
Destiny Books.

256
 Soundwalking

Schafer, R. Murray, and Barry Truax. (n.d.) “Soundscape.” www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Soundscape.

html.
Schine, Jennifer. 2016. “Movement, Memory & the Senses in Soundscape Studies.” Sensory Studies.
Accessed May 12. www.sensorystudies.org/sensorial-investigations/movement-memory-the-senses
-in-soundscape-studies/.
Semidor, Catherine. 2006. “Listening to a City with the Soundwalk Method.” Acta Acustica United with
Acustica 92 (6): 959–64.
Signorelli, Valerio. 2013. “Soundwalking in Virtual Ambiances: Applying Game Engine Technologies in
Soundscape Studies.” EAEA-11 Conference 2013, no. Track 2: 281–88.
———. 2014. “Unfolding the Soundmaps . Suggestions for Representing and Sharing The Sensory Form
of Urban Spaces Through Virtual Environ Ments and Web-Mapping Technologies.” In Invisible Places,
Sounding Cities.Viseu. http://invisibleplaces.org/invisibleplaces.html.
Thibaud, Jean-Paul. 2013.“Commented City Walks.” Journal of Mobile Media 7 (01): n.p. http://wi.mobilities.
ca/commented-city-walks/.
Tinkle, Adam. 2015. “Sound Pedagogy: Teaching Listening since Cage.” Organised Sound 20 (02): 222–30.
doi:10.1017/S1355771815000102.
Truax, Barry. 2012. “Sound, Listening and Place: The Aesthetic Dilemma.” Organised Sound 17 (January
2012): 193–201. doi:10.1017/S1355771811000380.
Uimonen, Heikki. 2011. “Everyday Sounds Revealed: Acoustic Communication and Environmental
Recordings.” Organised Sound 16 (03): 256–63. doi:10.1017/S1355771811000264.
Westerkamp, Hildegard. 2001. “Soundwalking.” Originally Published in Sound Heritage, Volume III Number 4,
Victoria B.C., 1974. www.sfu.ca/~westerka/writings page/articles pages/soundwalking.html.
———. 2011.“Exploring Balance & Focus in Acoustic Ecology.” The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 11 (1): 7–13.

257

View publication stats