UKC

At Edinburgh Napier University, we are looking at your experience of mountain soundscapes.

This research project will contribute to a body of research that will be submitted for publication in the Journal of Alpine Research. Your contribution will be incredibly valuable. Here is the link to contribute to the survey: https://survey.napier.ac.uk/n/MountainSoundscape.aspx 

Cheers,
Balandino.

Interesting but some overlap in the list of activities, is there a difference between hill walking & mountain walking ? And skiing really should be divided - there a large difference between the 'soundscape' when ski touring, XC skiing or in a crowded downhill ski resort.

Please come back with a link to any publication(s)

Very interesting points. Please add your comments to the survey. In terms of soundscape, there is quite a difference between hill walking and mountain walking, depending on where you do it, at what altitude, and in what weather conditions. Even factors like temperature and humidity have a big impact on the sound. 

Thank you for highlighting the difference when skiing! I'll try to rectify the survey! Please add all your comments to the survey.

Thanks for the comments. I'll definitely post here about the outcome and publication.

I have left some comments

Its a question of semantics but amongst my friends & colleagues, we tend to refer to hill walking, regardless of where we are, even if the terrain is 'mountainous' such as in the Alps. I would have thought that season was also a major factor, at least as important as any percieved difference between a hill & a mountain. Maybe you need some definitions ?

Good luck

Not your average run of the mill survey! I enjoyed thinking about my answers.

Thank you so much for doing it!

That's another good point. What would you say are the differences between hills and mountains?

In Scotland they’re one-way interchangeable mostly (all mountains could be called hills, only some hills might be referred to as mountains!).

I think mountain walking is what people who are on the ML scheme but aren't actually proper hill walkers call hill walking.

Hi Robert, you make a good point.

I made the distinction as the survey has been launched in different countries and translated into different languages. In places like Italy, there is quite a distinction between hill walking (generally understood as walks between around 400 and 1000 meters. Above starts to be considered more mountain walking. A bit because of the altitude, a bit because of the geography and weather conditions, what is often considered a mountain here would be defined as a hill in other parts of the world and vice-versa.

The MTA has the Lowland Leader, Hill and Moorland Leader, and Mountain Leader schemes. In many other countries, there is no such fine distinction. For example, in Italy, there are Alpine Guides and the equivalent of a Mountain Leader, which is called "Accompagnatore di Media Montagna". I'm not saying that one way is better than the other by any means, but being the survey for an international population, I had to provide different options for everyone to choose from.

I hope it makes sense, and I picked Italy as an example, as I'm Italian, not for anything else

In any case, this is all very interesting, perhaps a survey about the distinction between a mountain and hills is needed too

Hi, this is so true! What would you say makes a hill be defined as a mountain? Perhaps we need another survey here

In France, the main difference between a guides & an accompagnateur en moyenne montagne (mountain leader ?) is that only guides can work on glaciated  & technical (eg requiring rock climbing rather than walking) terrain. So an accompagnateur could lead groups up a 3000m peak if there was a footpath to the top.

Yes, I guess that's similar in Italy, but in the UK, it is not the same, I believe. From what I understood (I'm working toward my ML), the UK ML does not include winter conditions, regardless of the details of the route. Maybe I got it wrong.

In the UK there is a winter mountain leader qualification for leading groups  in the hills/mountains during the winter.

In France accompagnateurs often lead snow shoeing groups, its often their main activity in the winter,  although that may be restricted to valleys rather than the higher hills - not checked but the snow shoe walks offered here are all in the valleys & lower slopes but maybe because that's what potential clients are looking.

Quite apart from the confusion over hill/mountain walking, I was puzzled by the rating of sounds, from "poor" to "excellent".  Is this meant to refer to how well I can hear them (mainly a function of volume) or whether I find them welcome or intrusive, or positive or negative?  For example, although I can probably hear them quite well (on some surfaces anyway) I'm not usually very aware of my own footsteps but I'd probably not find them unwelcome, so where should that be on the scale?  SImilarly, birds and other wildlife are usually fairly quiet but I'm glad to hear them.

Should being able to hear an avalanche be rated as "excellent" because it makes me aware of a hazard, or "poor" because I really don't want to be anywhere near one?

In any event, my awareness of and reaction to the soundscape is likely to vary from one trip to another, and even during the same trip.  It's an interesting survey, and and interesting topic, but I found many of the questions too difficult to categorise or generalise about, and I'm afraid I couldn't complete it.

I've been puzzling over my motivation for climbing for more than 50 years, so don't expect a sensible answer to that one! I don't much enjoy slogging up hills, or being cold wet and miserable, or being scared, but I still willingly put myself through it and on the whole I seem to find it a positive experience.  

Hi Howard J, 

Thank you so much for the comment. Yes, this is a good point. As you say, a sound might be excellent or poor for many reasons, and you are right about this. The reasoning behind it was that people would comment more on their answers, as you did here I recognise that is a problem on my part in designing the survey. Please feel free to complete the survey at any point if this clarifies it.

It is of course up to you how you design the survey and how you analyse the answers.  However it seems to me that it will be very difficult to draw any conclusions if people can answer a question the same way but each mean something entirely different by it.  You can't (and indeed haven't) expected people to give a detailed explanation of every answer.

It seems to me that one's response to a soundscape (or any other environmental factor) is so subect to context and one's own mood that generalisations are impossible.  The buzzing of bees in the heather is soothing, the buzzing of a wasp around your sandwich is anything but. 

Yes, you are entirely correct. It is not possible to generalise unless the research is very specific and you collect a massive amount of data.

The idea of this first survey is to explore what people think and perceive on a very top macro scale, not in the specific. The comments in this forum are already "an answer" to the fact that some people do care about sound, and it is important to them. 

I'll definitely keep in mind this conversation in the future