Mapping Soundscape Research: Authors, Institutions, and Collaboration Networks

Abstract

Soundscape is the sonic environment that a living being, like a human or animal, experiences in a certain setting. It affects how a space functions and how the being perceives its quality. Consequently, the soundscape is crucial in ecosystems globally. In recent decades, researchers have explored soundscapes using various methodologies across different disciplines. This study aims to provide a brief overview of the soundscape research history, pinpoint key authors, institutions, and collaboration networks, and identify trends and main themes through a bibliometric analysis. A search in the Scopus database on 26 February 2025 found 5825 articles, reviews, and conference papers on soundscape published from 1985 to 2024. The analysis indicated a significant increase in soundscape publications, rising from 1 in 1985 to 19 in 2002, and reaching 586 in 2024. J. Kang was the most prolific author with 265 publications, while University College London emerged as the most productive institution. Co-citation analysis revealed three research groups: one focused on urban soundscapes, another on aquatic soundscapes, and a third on soundscapes in landscape ecology. The keyword co-occurrence analysis identified three themes: “soundscape(s), acoustic environment, and urban planning”, “noise, animal(s), bioacoustics, biodiversity, passive acoustic monitoring, fish, and bird(s)”, and “human(s), sound, perception, and physiology”.

1. Introduction

Sound plays a crucial role in the lives of human beings and other living organisms. Studies have shown that fetuses begin to perceive sound at approximately 20 weeks into pregnancy [1] and exhibit responses to maternal voices or speech stimuli between 26 and 34 weeks [2,3,4]. In fact, individuals unconsciously integrate sensory input from hearing, sight, smell, and touch to assess the authenticity of their surroundings [5]. As a key stimulus, sound profoundly impacts humans as it provides vital information about the environment [6]. Whether it is a speech, music, a song, an alarm, a dog’s barking, birds singing, or natural sounds like wind, rain, thunder, and waves, or even man-made noises like vehicle noise, aircraft noise, ventilation noise, construction noise, and community noise, sound carries essential cues. Moreover, humans utilize speech to communicate with others, while songs and music serve as a means to express their emotions. They also find solace and delight in the soothing sounds of nature, immersing themselves in its wonders. Interestingly, not all noises are detrimental to humans. For instance, some individuals find comfort in community noise as it alleviates feelings of loneliness and depression. It is undeniable that people longed for the urban soundscape during the lockdown periods enforced due to the COVID-19 pandemic [7].

Researchers have extensively studied the effects of sound and noise on humans for many decades, with notable contributions from Beranek and his associates [8,9]. In the 1960s, researchers began exploring the positive aspects of sounds and introduced the concept of soundscape to describe the unique sonic environment of a particular setting [10,11,12]. This idea gained traction across various fields, including landscape ecology and ocean science. Soundscape studies encompass both man-made sounds and sounds from other biological sources like dogs, birds, insects, and fish, as well as geophonic sources like rain, wind, thunder, waves, sea ice, and storms [13,14]. In 2014, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) established a unified definition of soundscape, characterizing it as the “acoustic environment as perceived or experienced and/or understood by a person or people, in context”, highlighting the subjective nature of this concept as it generally relates to individual or collective human experiences [15]. Furthermore, the standard ISO 12913 emphasizes the importance of measuring sound in decibels (dBA) as both qualitative evaluations and quantitative measurements are crucial for understanding human perception [15]. In recent years, soundscape research has garnered increased attention due to its significance in the emergence of smart and sustainable cities [16,17,18] and sustainable development [19]. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that soundscape studies have also been conducted by landscape and marine ecologists who investigate various ecosystem services on Earth [13,14]. These studies utilize spectrograms that capture the time-frequency characteristics of various sounds both on land [13] and in aquatic environments [13,14]. According to Scopus, the number of publications on soundscape in journals and conference proceedings has risen from 19 in 2002 to 586 in 2024.

To gain insights into the research efforts dedicated to the study of soundscape in recent decades, a search was conducted on Scopus on 26 February 2025, using “soundscape” and “bibliometric” within “Article title, Abstract, Keywords,” i.e., (TITLE-ABS-KEY (soundscape) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (bibliometric)). Surprisingly, this search yielded only five documents: [20,21,22,23,24]. Each of these documents focused on a specific aspect of sound-scape research. For instance, Wang et al. [20] examined how the design of road traffic can mitigate noise and enhance the positive aspects of the road traffic soundscape from a bibliometric perspective. On the other hand, Kong and Han [21] explored the psychological and physiological effects of soundscape, while Zhang et al. [22] conducted a review of studies on soundscape in religious historical buildings. He et al. [23] performed a literature review on international music geography research through a bibliometric analysis, discovering that some studies regarded music geography as a distinct urban soundscape. They proposed that Chinese researchers could draw insights from the development paths of music geography abroad and investigate their relevance for China. Hossain et al. [24] concentrated on the application of psycho-acoustic quality metrics in the study of indoor soundscape. Therefore, despite these findings, it remains unclear how much effort researchers have dedicated to the study of soundscape generally in recent decades. To address this important research question, a timely bibliometric analysis is necessary to uncover the trends and key themes of soundscape research comprehensively. The present study aims to answer several crucial questions, including the trends of soundscape research, the most productive authors in the field, the affiliations and countries producing the most soundscape research outputs, the funding bodies that support soundscape research, the most popular source titles, the most influential soundscape publications based on citations, the most active soundscape research groups and their relationships, and the emerging themes and hot topics of soundscape research using cluster analyses. The findings of the study will contribute to a deeper understanding of the soundscape and shed light on the past and present state of soundscape research.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The subsequent two sections present a brief history of soundscape research, a quick review of bibliometric analysis, and the methodology employed. They are succeeded by the Results and Discussion sections. Finally, the paper ends with the Conclusion section.

2. History of Soundscape Research and Review of Bibliometric Analysis

2.1. A Brief History of Soundscape Research

Researchers have studied sound, noise, and their impacts on humans for more than a century [8,9,25,26]. Since the 1960s, researchers have delved into the concept of soundscape and how individuals utilize auditory perceptions to define the environment in a positive manner [10,11,12,27,28,29]. In his book “The New Soundscape: A Handbook for the Modern Music Teacher”, Schafer [11] encouraged his music students to actively listen to sounds, regardless of their pleasantness, and to engage in “soundwalks” to document the soundscape around them. However, soundscape remained a relatively unexplored topic until the turn of the millennium. It was sporadically mentioned in articles within the fields of music [30], landscape and urban planning [31,32], and architectural studies [33,34]. Although the World Forum for Acoustic Ecology, organized by Simon Frasier University since 1992, aimed to promote the World Soundscape Project initiated by Schafer, Truax and their colleagues in the 1970s, it was not until 2002 that Organised Sound, a journal published by Cambridge University Press, dedicated a special issue to soundscape studies from various perspectives [35,36,37,38,39]. Since then, there have been special issues in academic journals and dedicated sessions in international conferences and congresses that focus on soundscape, leading to an increasing number of publications on the subject. The International Organization for Standardization has also released a series of ISO 12913 documents since 2014, which articulate the concept of soundscape from a human-centered viewpoint and offer guidelines for the collection, analysis, and reporting of relevant data [40].

Erfanian et al. [41] conducted a systematic review on the psychophysiological implications of soundscape. Out of the 122 peer-reviewed empirical articles screened, only five studies met the criteria for qualitative synthesis. Erfanian et al. [41] reported that heart rate, respiration rate, and skin conductance level were frequently mentioned as physiological metrics, while pleasantness (valence) and arousal were frequently used as psychological descriptors for soundscape evaluations. However, the relationship between physiological responses and psychological attributes varied across these studies, resulting in inconclusive evidence regarding the psychophysiological effects of soundscape. Moreover, the number of participants in these studies ranged from 16 to 80 [41], indicating that caution should be exercised when generalizing the findings. Engel et al. [42] conducted a systematic review on the use of psychoacoustic indicators in soundscape research. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, they reviewed 46 peer-reviewed articles on soundscape published between 2010 and 2020. Engel et al. [42] reported that the most frequently used indicator was loudness, followed by sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength, and tonality, with the number of participants in these studies varying significantly from 7 to 10,000. Torresin et al. [43] conducted a systematic review on the indoor soundscape in residential buildings. They identified 37 relevant articles published between 2010 and 2019 using Scopus. Most of the studies utilized laboratory tests or socio-acoustic/social surveys to assess people’s perceptions of the indoor soundscape. Torresin et al. [43] noted that while acoustic comfort and noise annoyance were associated with sound levels, the temporal and spectral characteristics of sound also played a role. Furthermore, various elements such as individual characteristics, socio-economic aspects, and building attributes impact the assessment of sound quality in indoor spaces. Lionello et al. [44] carried out a comprehensive analysis of forecasting models for urban soundscapes. According to their findings from 24 articles published between 2008 and 2018, Lionello et al. [44] reported that a wide range of descriptors like acoustic comfort, valence, arousal, sound quality, and tranquility were used, while predictors included sound pressure level, loudness, sharpness, roughness, personal traits, presence of natural sounds, presence of human activities, and more. In a similar vein, Hasegawa and Lau [45] conducted a systematic review on the audiovisual effects of bimodal interactions for designing indoor soundscapes. Drawing insights from 30 relevant articles, Hasegawa and Lau [45] suggested that the inclusion of greenery and water features could potentially alleviate occupants’ perception of noise disturbance in indoor settings, subject to specific circumstances.

Sounds have a profound impact not only on humans but also on various other living organisms as animals, birds, insects, and fish. These organisms utilize sounds for hunting and avoiding predators. As a result, ecologists such as B.C. Pijanowski from Purdue University and F. Juanes from the University of Victoria have undertaken soundscape research in different major biomes around the world over the past few decades. Specifically, Pijanowski [13,46] emphasized the importance of soundscape ecology within landscape ecology, providing a comprehensive review of the influences of biophony, geophony, and antrophony on species. On the other hand, Juanes and his co-authors [14,47,48] have investigated the impact of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology, while Ajibola-James et al. [49] explored the impact of industrial noise on wildlife behavior in Nigeria.

2.2. Review of Bibliometric Analysis

A systematic literature review serves as a means to consolidate and summarize the findings of the existing literature pertaining to a specific topic [50]. This approach is particularly useful when the scope of the review is narrow and the number of publications is relatively small, such as in the case of exploring psychophysiological implications of soundscape [41] and indoor soundscape in residential buildings [43]. However, when the scope of the review is broad and the number of publications is large for a manual review, as is the case with soundscape research, where the number of publications reaches into the thousands, a bibliometric analysis is more appropriate [50].

A bibliometric analysis consists of two main components: performance analysis and science mapping [51,52,53]. Performance analysis aims to evaluate the contributions of authors, affiliations, countries, and funding bodies to a specific topic. It also includes identifying subject areas, top source titles, and the most highly cited publications. Science mapping aims to display the structural and interactive aspects of the chosen topic. This involves conducting co-authorship analysis, co-citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence analysis.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Source and Data

Web of Science and Scopus are the two most commonly used academic indexing databases for bibliometric analysis [54,55,56]. The former database has a strict set of criteria for journal inclusion, including 24 quality criteria to assess a journal’s editorial rigor and good practices, as well as four additional impact criteria for the journal to obtain an impact factor [57]. As a result, Web of Science is recognized as a reputable indexing database for high-quality publications. Its core collection has expanded to over 22 thousand journals with about 95 million records since Garfield published the first Science Citation Index in 1964. However, it does not cover numerous less-established and new open-access journals and conference proceedings across various disciplines [58,59]. Scopus, on the other hand, has a relatively shorter history compared to Web of Science. It was launched by Elsevier in 2004, initially covering 14 thousand journals and 27 million records. Scopus also has detailed inclusion criteria, requiring journals to meet four conditions and 14 criteria in five categories, such as journal policy, content, standing, publishing regularity, and online availability [60]. It continuously adds content and currently covers over 28 thousand journals, including over 5500 open-access journals, and papers from over 14 thousand conferences. Scopus boasts over 100 million records. Additionally, Scopus collaborates with various stakeholders such as authors, i.e., researchers, institutions, funding bodies, and university ranking bodies, to curate its content [61]. It also supports bibliometricians with data to explore international collaboration and openness [62], and co-authorship networks in Europe [63]. Scopus provides a range of bibliometric tools and an easy-to-use interface for exporting data in different formats for data analysis. Therefore, the present study utilized Scopus as the data source.

A literature search was conducted in Scopus on 26 February 2025, using “soundscape*” within “Article title, Abstract, Keywords”. The search query used in Scopus was (TITLE-ABS-KEY (soundscape*)). This search yielded a total of 7416 documents, comprising 3903 articles, 312 reviews, 2187 conference papers, 641 book chapters, 134 books, 111 conference reviews, 41 notes, 37 editorials, 21 errata, 13 short surveys, 9 data papers, 5 letters, and 2 retracted papers. Out of these documents, 7371 were in the final publication stage, while 45 were articles in press. In terms of source type, 4346 were obtained from journals, 2083 from conference proceedings, 676 from books, 299 from book series, and 12 from trade journals. In terms of language, 7119 were in English, and 297 were in other languages such as Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, German, and French. Upon refining the search to include only articles, reviews, and conference papers in English, from journals and conference proceedings, in the final publication stage, and up to the year 2024, 5827 documents were retained, consisting of 3530 articles, 271 reviews, and 2026 conference papers. The bibliographical information, abstracts, keywords, citation details, as well as other relevant information such as funding sources and references, of these 5827 documents were exported as a csv file. The documents were thoroughly examined for significant information such as author names and source titles. Author names were missing in one journal article and one review. Therefore, 5825 documents were included in the analysis. Figure 1 shows the method used in the study that closely adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) [64].

3.2. Data Analysis Approach

Bibliometric techniques, such as performance analysis and science mapping, were utilized to investigate the field of soundscape research. In terms of performance analysis, the study employed Scopus tools to determine the number of soundscape publications per year over the past few decades. Furthermore, the study identified the number of soundscape publications by authors, affiliations, countries, funding bodies, subject areas, and source titles. The top ten most-cited articles were also identified using Scopus.

Science mapping was used to illustrate the structural and interactive elements of the chosen topic. The data from the csv file was first screened for any missing data, resulting in the exclusion of two documents lacking author names. Subsequently, the revised csv file was imported into VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) for an in-depth bibliometric analysis [52,53]. The analysis revealed that keywords such as “soundscape”, “soundscapes”, “human”, “humans”, “acoustic”, “acoustics”, “animal”, and “animals” were frequently mentioned in the documents. However, due to the different meanings and applications of singular and plural forms of nouns in various articles, they were not combined as one term in the keyword co-occurrence analysis. Co-authorship analysis was used to unveil research collaboration networks at both the individual and country levels. Co-citation analysis was utilized to pinpoint the most influential authors and publications. Additionally, keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted to identify the main themes in soundscape research and how these themes have evolved over time. All keywords, including author keywords and index keywords, were considered in the analysis. The default minimum number of keyword co-occurrences in VOSviewer was 5, while for all 5825 documents, the minimum number of keyword co-occurrences was adjusted to 50. Furthermore, an analysis of keyword co-occurrences was conducted on the publications identified within the following specified time frames: 1985–2009 (the initial phase with 566 documents), 2010–2019 (the take-off phase with 2545 documents), and 2020–2024 (the most recent development with 2714 documents). The minimum numbers of keyword co-occurrences were set to 10, 20, and 20, respectively, for each respective period. The trend topics were pinpointed through Biblioshiny [65], shedding light on the hot topics of the past few years.

4. Results

4.1. Trends of Soundscape Research

The Scopus search results show that the first article titled “Soundscape” was published in the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research by Porteous and Mastin in 1985. During the 1980s, there were only four publications on soundscape research [34,66,67,68]. By the 1990s, the total number of soundscape publications had risen to 40, which was still less than an average of 5 articles per year. Figure 2a displays the publication count on the soundscape from 2000 to 2024. It shows a generally upward trend, starting from 5 in 2000 and reaching 586 in 2024. The trend became more pronounced after 2011. Figure 2b illustrates the publication count on soundscape from the three most productive countries: The United States, the United Kingdom, and China. The upward trends were more pronounced in the United States and the United Kingdom after 2007, whereas China’s upward trend became more apparent after 2015, lagging almost a decade behind the United States and the United Kingdom.

4.2. Performance Analysis Using Scopus Tools

4.2.1. The Most Productive Authors, Affiliations, and Countries

According to the Scopus search, there were 157 authors who had published 10 or more works on soundscape.

Table 1. Top ten authors by the number of soundscape publications.

Rank	Author Name	Publications				Citations	h-Index
		A	R	CP	Total
1	Kang, J.	151	11	103	265	8296	47
2	Aletta, F.	63	10	40	113	3540	34
3	Botteldooren, D.	37	0	47	84	2317	24
4	Jeon, J.Y.	29	1	32	62	2485	25
5	Oberman, T.	32	2	19	53	1210	19
5	Hong, J.Y.	26	1	26	53	1823	18
7	Maffei, L.	24	0	28	52	1421	17
8	Guastavino, C.	25	0	22	47	1270	15
9	Gan, W.S.	19	1	25	45	724	12
9	Schulte-Fortkamp, B.	9	0	36	45	818	8

Notes: A stands for Article, R stands for Review, and CP stands for Conference paper; Citations and h-index were determined based on the identified soundscape publications.

provides information on the number of soundscape publications published by the top 10 authors. The most prolific author was J. Kang from University College London, with a total of 265 soundscape publications, including 151 journal articles, 11 reviews, and 103 conference papers. Ranking second was F. Aletta, also from University College London, with 113 soundscape publications, including 63 journal articles, 10 reviews, and 40 conference papers. D. Botteldooren from Universiteit Gent secured the third position with 84 soundscape publications, consisting of 37 journal articles and 47 conference papers. J.Y. Jeon from Hanyang University was ranked fourth, having published 62 soundscape works, including 29 journal articles, 1 review, and 32 conference papers. T. Oberman of University College London and J.Y. Hong from Chungnam National University secured the fifth position, each contributing 53 soundscape publications. Oberman published 32 journal articles, 2 reviews, and 19 conference papers, whereas Hong produced 26 journal articles, 1 review, and 26 conference papers. L. Maffei from Università della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, C. Guastavino from Université McGill, W.S. Gan from Nan-yang Technological University, and B. Schulte-Fortkamp from HEAD-Genuit-Foundation were ranked seventh to tenth, respectively, with 45 to 52 soundscape publications each. In terms of citations, J. Kang garnered 8296 citations for his 265 soundscape publications, while F. Aletta received 3540 citations for his 113 soundscape publications.

When the number of soundscape publications by affiliations was searched, University College London, along with its Barlett Faculty of the Built Environment, emerged as the most productive affiliation with 204 publications. Following closely behind was CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique with 146 publications. The University of Sheffield ranked third with 142 publications. Notably, J. Kang contributed to 124 out of these 142 publications, and Universiteit Gent secured the fourth position, producing 110 soundscape publications. Technische Universität Berlin claimed the fifth spot with 91 soundscape publications. Harbin Institute of Technology followed in sixth place with 90 soundscape publications, with J. Kang from University College London co-authoring 62 of them in collaboration with researchers in the School of Architecture at Harbin Institute of Technology frequently. McGill University, Università della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Nanyang Technological University, Hanyang University, and the University of Salford rounded out the top ten, producing between 59 and 67 soundscape publications each.

When the number of sound-scape publications by countries was searched, researchers from the United States continued to hold a leading position in publishing journal articles, reviews, and conference papers on sound-scape, with a total of 1236 publications, despite the absence of any top 10 authors or affiliations from the United States. Followed closely were researchers from the United Kingdom, who produced 1113 soundscape publications. China secured the third spot, with 488 soundscape publications. Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, and the Netherlands claimed the fourth to the tenth positions in the ranking, contributing from 213 to 429 publications.

4.2.2. Top Funding Bodies and Popular Source Titles

Table 2. Top ten funding bodies (supporting 56 soundscape publications or more).

Rank	Funding Body (Region/Country)	Number of Publications
1	European Commission (EU)	262
2	National Natural Science Foundation (China)	229
3	National Science Foundation (US)	143
4	Ministry of Science and Technology (China)	131
5	UK Research and Innovation (UK)	118
6	Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU)	116
7	European Research Council (EU)	111
8	Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK)	89
9	Seventh Framework Programme (EU)	64
10	Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Brazil)	56

Note: Some authors acknowledged more than one funding body in their publications.

presents the number of soundscape publications that received funding from various funding bodies. Among the 5825 publications, the authors in 262 publications acknowledged the financial support from the European Commission, while the authors in 229 publications recognized the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Additionally, the authors in 143 publications received funding from the National Science Foundation (US). The Ministry of Science and Technology of China supported 131 publications.

When the number of soundscape publications was categorized based on source titles, Applied Acoustics claimed the top spot, boasting 162 publications. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America secured the second position with 136 publications. Following closely were two proceeding series: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series with 101 publications and Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics with 92 publications Ecological Indicators ranked fifth with 88 publications. It was followed by Proceedings of Forum Acusticum, Organised Sound, Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, and Inter Noise 2019 Madrid 48th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control, as shown in

Table 3. Top ten source titles.

Rank	Source Title	Number of Publications
1	Applied Acoustics	162
2	Journal of the Acoustical Society of America	136
3	ACM International Conference Proceedings Series	101
4	Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics	92
5	Ecological Indicators	88
6	Proceedings of Forum Acusticum	85
7	Organised Sound	66
8	Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics	60
8	International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	60
10	Inter Noise 2019 *	55

Note: * Its full name is Inter Noise 2019 Madrid 48th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control.

.

4.2.3. Top Ten Highly Cited Publications

Table 4. Top ten most frequently cited soundscape publications.

Authors	Year	Title	Source	Citations	Citations per Year
Pijanowski et al. [13]	2011	Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape	BioScience	863	57.5
Alvarsson et al. [69]	2010	Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise	Int. J. of Environmental Research and Public Health	616	38.5
Axelsson et al. [70]	2010	A principal components model of soundscape perception	Journal of the Acoustical Society of America	613	38.3
Pijanowski et al. [46]	2011	What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science	Landscape Ecology	513	34.2
Blumstein et al. [71]	2011	Acoustic monitoring in terrestrial environments using microphone arrays: Applications, technological considerations and prospectus	Journal of Applied Ecology	491	32.7
Annerstedt et al. [72]	2013	Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest—Results from a pilot study	Physiology and Behavior	485	37.3
Yang and Kang [27]	2005	Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces	Applied Acoustics	474	22.6
Pieretti et al. [73]	2011	A new methodology to infer the singing activity of an avian community: The Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI)	Ecological Indicators	469	31.2
Duarte et al. [14]	2021	The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean	Science	464	92.8
Sugai et al. [74]	2019	Terrestrial passive acoustic monitoring: review and perspectives	BioScience	387	55.3

presents the top 10 most frequently cited soundscape publications. As of 26 February 2025, the article by Pijanowski et al. [13] titled “Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape” in BioScience secured the first position with 863 citations. This article aimed to establish a unifying theory of soundscape ecology as a crucial element of landscape ecology, focusing on the causes and effects of biophony, geophony, and antrophony. Pijanowski et al. [13] advocated that humans should value natural soundscapes as they embody the heritage of the earth’s acoustic biodiversity, which should be preserved for future generations. In the second spot is the article by Alvarsson et al. [69] titled “Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health with 616 citations. Alvarsson et al. [69] highlighted that natural sounds, known to be pleasant, and technological sounds, considered unpleasant, might have different impacts on stress recovery. They conducted an experiment where 40 participants were exposed to either natural sounds or environmental noise after a two-minute stressful mental arithmetic task. They found that the recovery rate of participants’ skin conductance level was higher when exposed to natural sounds compared to environmental noises, indicating a positive impact of natural sounds on stress recovery.

The article by Axelsson et al. [70] titled “A principal components model of soundscape perception” in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America secured the third position with 613 citations. Axelsson et al. [70] analyzed 50 soundscape excerpts (each lasting for 30 s) from various outdoor settings in London and Stockholm and invited 100 listeners to use 116 attribute scales to describe these binaural sound clips. They identified three main components of soundscape—pleasantness, eventfulness, and familiarity—through principal components analysis. Their research revealed that natural sounds were perceived as pleasant, human sounds as eventful, and technological sounds as unpleasant. The fourth most cited publication was “What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science” by Pijanowski et al. [46] in Landscape Ecology, with 513 citations. Pijanowski et al. [46] aimed to define soundscape ecology and illustrate spatial and temporal variations in soundscapes. They also suggested the need for new tools to better integrate, manage, visualize, and auralize soundscape ecology. The fifth highly cited publication was a review titled “Acoustic monitoring in terrestrial environments using microphone arrays: Applications, technological considerations and prospectus” by Blumstein et al. [71] in the Journal of Applied Ecology, with 491 citations. Blumstein et al. [71] reviewed the development of bioacoustics technologies, including autonomous cabled and wireless recording arrays over the years, and provided guidance on utilizing these technologies for studying animals at both individual and group levels, as well as for wildlife management.

The seventh highly cited publication was “Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest—Results from a pilot study” in Physiology and Behavior by Annerstedt et al. [72]. This publication received 485 citations. The article titled “Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces” by Yang and Kang [27] in Applied Acoustics was the seventh most highly cited publication, with 474 citations. Yang and Kang [27] reported a large-scale questionnaire survey and sound level measurements from the summer of 2001 to the spring of 2002. The survey gathered responses from 9200 participants in 14 urban open public spaces across Europe. The study revealed that the background sound level played a crucial role in determining the soundscape index in urban open public spaces, and a lower background sound level contributed to a sense of tranquility. Age was found to significantly impact acoustic comfort, while subjective evaluation of sound level remained unaffected.

The eighth highly cited publication was “A new methodology to infer the singing activity of an avian community: The Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI)” in Ecological Indicators by Pieretti et al. [73] with 469 citations. Pieretti et al. [73] focused on characterizing bird songs using the Acoustic Complexity Index. The ninth highly cited publication was “The soundscape of the Anthropocene Ocean” in Science by Duarte et al. [14]. Despite being published in 2021, it garnered 464 citations, making it the publication with the highest citations per year at 92.8. The tenth highly cited publication was “Terrestrial passive acoustic monitoring: review and perspectives” in BioScience by Sugai et al. [74]. It attracted 387 citations.

4.3. Science Mapping

4.3.1. Co-Authorship Analysis Using VOSviewer

Co-authorship analyses were conducted using VOSviewer at the individual level. When the analysis was based on authors with 5 or more publications, 464 out of the total 12,164 authors met the threshold. However, when the minimum number of publications required was set to 10, only 157 authors met the threshold. Among the authors who met the threshold, J. Kang ranked first with 265 documents, followed by F. Aletta with 113 documents and D. Botteldooren with 84 documents. Figure 3 and its associated table provide further insights into the collaborations of J. Kang, showing that he frequently collaborated with F. Aletta (83 publications), T. Oberman (46 publications), A. Mitchell (29 publications), Q. Meng (23 publications), and S. Torresin (14 publications).

Figure 3 also illustrates the clusters formed by the co-authors. The largest cluster, highlighted in red, consisted of 26 authors. This cluster was led by T.A. Mooney from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States and F. Juanes from the University of Victoria, both of whom focus on the study of ocean soundscapes. The second largest cluster, marked in green, comprised 18 authors. This cluster was led by B. Schulte-Fortkamp from HEAD-Genuit-Foundation, who focuses on urban soundscape and sounds in cities. The third largest cluster, distinguished by blue, included 13 authors. This cluster was led by D. Botteldooren from Universiteit Gent, who specializes in acoustics design and the impact of noise on humans. The fourth cluster, highlighted in yellow, included 11 authors. This was spearheaded by L. Maffei from Università della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli. The fifth cluster, represented by purple, had 8 authors. This cluster was led by B. C. Pijanowski and A. Farina. The sixth to ninth clusters, represented by light blue, orange, brown, and light purple, respectively, each had 6 authors. They were separately led by F. Aletta, W.S. Gan, C. Guastavino, and J. Kang, respectively. Notably, J. Kang collaborated directly with 43 authors who met the threshold in this analysis, confirming his position as a central figure in soundscape research.

4.3.2. Co-Citation Analysis Using VOSviewer

Co-citation analysis was conducted at the level of cited authors. When the minimum number of citations was set to 20, 3437 out of the 159,486 identified authors met the threshold. However, when the minimum number of citations was increased to 200, only 174 authors were able to meet the threshold. Within this group of authors, J. Kang was the most frequently cited author with 5895 citations, A. Farina ranked second with 2435 citations, followed by F. Aletta with 2228 citations, and D. Botteldooren with 1631 citations. It was found that each of the top ten authors had over 1200 citations. Additionally, Figure 4 illustrates that these 174 authors formed three distinct clusters. The first cluster, represented in red, consisted of 77 authors, with J. Kang from University College London serving as the core member with 167 links and a total link strength of 203,066. The second cluster, depicted in green, comprised 50 authors, with S.D. Simpson from the University of Bristol (151 links and a total link strength of 44,570) and C.A. Radford from the University of Auckland (137 links and a total link strength of 34,913) serving as the core members. Lastly, the third cluster, shown in blue, included 47 authors, with A. Farina from Urbino University serves as the core member with 173 links and a total link strength of 117,554. More interestingly, this co-citation analysis identified three main re-search groups: the first group focuses on soundscape within urban settings (i.e., the first cluster), the second group investigates bioacoustics in aquatic environments (i.e., the second cluster), and the third group is dedicated on landscape ecology (i.e., the third cluster). Figure 4 illustrates the multidisciplinary nature of soundscape studies and highlights the tenuous connections between these groups or clusters, indicating the emerging cross-disciplinary aspect of soundscape studies.

4.3.3. Co-Occurrence of Keywords Analysis Using VOSviewer

The analysis of the co-occurrence of keywords, i.e., all keywords, was conducted on all 5825 publications using VOSviewer. When the threshold for the number of keyword co-occurrences was set to 50, 156 out of the 22,724 identified keywords met the criteria. These keywords formed three distinct clusters: Cluster 1 consisted of 76 keywords, Cluster 2 had 53 keywords, and Cluster 3 contained 27 keywords. Figure 5 visually presents the three clusters: Cluster 1 in red, Cluster 2 in green, and Cluster 3 in blue.

Cluster 1 focuses on the soundscape and its impacts on the acoustic environment and urban planning in general. Cluster 2 delves into the effect of noise on animals, including fish and birds, and how noise influences their bioacoustic responses. Cluster 3 centers around human perceptions of sound and their physiological responses. These clusters can be labeled as follows: Cluster 1—“soundscape(s), acoustic environment, and urban planning”, Cluster 2—“noise, animal(s), bioacoustics, biodiversity, fish, and bird(s)”, and Cluster 3—“human(s), sound, perception, and physiology”.

Figure 6 displays an overlay visualization of keyword co-occurrence analysis. It demonstrates that the transition of soundscape studies from urban planning (Cluster 1 in Figure 5), to the exploration of human perception (Cluster 3 in Figure 5), and finally to the impact of soundscapes on nature (Cluster 2 in Figure 5).

During the analysis of keyword co-occurrences in the 566 documents published between 1985 and 2009, with a minimum threshold of 10 co-occurrences, 60 out of the 2986 identified keywords met the threshold. This analysis produced five clusters as shown in Figure 7. The largest cluster, highlighted in red, consisted of 26 items, focusing on soundscape, human(s), virtual reality, audio acoustics, and public spaces. The second cluster, highlighted in green, included 10 items related to acoustic noise, noise pollution, road traffic noise, environmental noise, and community noise. The third cluster, highlighted in blue, contained 9 items related to architectural acoustics, behavioral research, urban design, and urban soundscape. The fourth cluster, highlighted in yellow, comprised 8 items related to acoustics, acoustic variables control, sound level, and sound quality. Lastly, the fifth cluster, highlighted in purple, included 7 items related to soundscapes, environmental sounds, industrial engineering, engineering, and acoustic environment.

An analysis of keyword co-occurrences was conducted on 2545 documents published between 2010 and 2019, with a minimum co-occurrence set to 20. Out of the 12,082 keywords identified, 186 met the threshold, resulting in the formation of three clusters as shown in Figure 8. The largest cluster, highlighted in color, consisted of 90 items focusing on soundscape(s), urban planning, environmental noise, audio acoustics, and virtual reality. The second cluster, highlighted in green, included 56 items related to bioacoustics, biodiversity, ecology, underwater acoustics, fish, animal(s), and non-human. The third cluster, highlighted in blue, comprised 40 items covering sound, music, human(s), female, male, perception, psychoacoustics, auditory perception, and physiology.

Finally, an analysis of keyword co-occurrences was conducted on 2714 documents published between 2020 and 2024, with a minimum co-occurrence set to 20. Out of the 13,575 identified keywords, 213 met the threshold, forming four clusters as shown in Figure 9. The largest cluster, highlighted in red, consisted of 90 items focusing on soundscape(s), acoustic noise, noise pollution, surveys, perception, virtual reality, urban planning, audio acoustics, and more. The second cluster, highlighted in green, included 56 items related to bioacoustics, biodiversity, birds (s), deep learning, ecoacoustics, passive acoustic monitoring, machine learning, and others. The third cluster, highlighted in blue, comprised 40 items covering acoustics, animal(s), anthropogenic noise, ecosystem, fish(es), noise, noise pollution, nonhuman, underwater acoustics, and others. The fourth cluster, highlighted in yellow, included 27 items covering article, sound, human(s), female, male, hearing, auditory perception, physiology, and COVID-19. Notably, COVID-19 has a frequency count of 66, 132 links, and a total link strength of 493.

4.4. Trend Topics Analysis

Figure 10 displays a trend plot generated by Biblioshiny, showcasing the evolution of soundscape research over the years. The shift can be observed from focusing on human perception such as auditory interfaces and cognitive process in 2007, to exploring sound in urban environments like soundscape and urban spaces in 2011, then transiting to urban environmental noise and urban planning in 2016, and finally delving into human, bioacoustics, and animal(s) in 2020. Notably, in the last four years, terms like biodiversity, COVID-19, passive acoustic monitoring, China, convolutional neural network, deep learning, machine learning, invertebrates, fresh water, and background noise have gained significant popularity in the field.

4.5. Keyword Strategy, Conceptual Ambiguity, and Interpretive Constraints

This study used a single keyword—soundscape—to identify and analyze documents across nearly four decades. This decision was intentional. Much like the early use of terms such as sound or acoustics in scholarly research, soundscape today represents a rich but conceptually diffuse entry point. It is employed across numerous disciplines, including urban planning, environmental psychology, bioacoustics, landscape ecology, and the arts. The study objective was to provide a macro-level map of how the term has evolved in practice, not to constrain it within a narrow conceptual boundary.

That said, we acknowledge that this approach introduces interpretive challenges. As noted by Sterne [75], Grinfeder et al. [76], and Mitchell et al. [77], soundscape is a contested term with multiple, sometimes conflicting meanings. These range from human-centered perceptual experiences in built environments to ecological representations of biodiversity through passive acoustic monitoring. The term functions as what sociologists of science might call a “boundary object”—adaptable across epistemic communities while retaining local specificity. This definitional ambiguity inevitably shapes the bibliometric outcomes. The clustering patterns in Figure 4, for instance, are partially a reflection of the semantic breadth of the soundscape. We observe distinct and relatively siloed groups: one centered around Kang and his collaborators, focusing on urban soundscape perception and standardization (often aligned with ISO 12913), and another led by Farina and Pijanowski, anchored in ecological and bioacoustic inquiry. These clusters reflect not only different research themes but also different methodological assumptions, disciplinary norms, and knowledge production goals.

We also examined the temporal dimension of this conceptual evolution by comparing publication trends before and after the introduction of ISO 12913 in 2014. This international standard formalized the definition of soundscape as the “acoustic environment as perceived or experienced and/or understood by a person or people, in context”. Our dataset shows a noticeable increase in publications adopting perceptual metrics, often citing ISO 12913, rising from 1 publication in 2011 to 4 publications in 2016, then peaking at 21 publications in 2023, particularly in the urban soundscape domain. This suggests a growing convergence in one segment of the field. Conversely, the ecological soundscape literature appears to have remained relatively unaffected, continuing to evolve through its own frameworks and tools. Furthermore, when we employed more specific search terms like [“soundscape” AND “environmental noise”] within “Article title, Abstract, Keywords” and [“soundscape” AND “bioacoustics”] within “Article title, Abstract, Keywords”, the former search yielded 239 articles, reviews, and conference papers published from 2003 to 2024, while the latter produced 345 articles, reviews, and conference papers from 2006 to 2024. However, the breadth and scope of these searches are considerably narrower than the findings presented in our study. As anticipated, the maps of keyword co-occurrences differ and are much narrower than the one we reported in the manuscript, as they focus on distinct sub-category research efforts. Nevertheless, these searches could prove more beneficial for future research endeavors such as systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses.

5. Discussion

The novelty of this study lies in its quantitative methodology, along with the utilization of science mapping and trend analysis to uncover the evolution of soundscape research over the past few decades [78]. As a result, one of the key goals of this review is to map scholarly interactions that may foster further intra- and interdisciplinary collaborations within the field. According to the data retrieved from Scopus on 26 February 2025, it was observed that there was a significant lack of research on soundscape during the 1980s and 1990s. However, there has been a positive shift in the past two decades as the soundscape has garnered increased attention from researchers. This is evident from the steady growth in the number of publications on soundscape, which rose from 19 in 2002 to 586 in 2024, as depicted in Figure 2a. Furthermore, Chinese researchers have made notable contributions in this field in recent years, as shown in Figure 2b, thanks to the support provided by the government (refer to Table 4) and the emergence of Chinese researchers [79].

J. Kang from University College London emerged as the most productive author in the field of soundscape. Followed closely behind was his colleague, F. Aletta and D. Botteldooren from Universiteit Gent, as indicated in Table 1. University College London, CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, and the University of Sheffield were identified as the most productive affiliations. However, it is important to note that researchers from the United States produced the highest number of soundscape publications overall, with researchers from the United Kingdom closely following behind. On the other hand, the European Commission and the National Natural Science Foundation of China proved to be the most active sponsors in funding soundscape research, as highlighted in Table 2. This finding is not surprising considering that the European Commission has a tradition to support basic research, while China’s government has actively supported research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) over the past two decades, with the aim of transitioning the country from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based and innovation-driven one [80]. Additionally, two traditional acoustics journals, namely Applied Acoustics and the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, were the most popular choices among soundscape researchers. However, ecology and public health journals such as Ecological Indicators and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health were also popular choices.

The most frequently cited publication was the article by Pijanowski et al. [13], with a total of 863 citations. This article presented a comprehensive theory of soundscape ecology, which plays a crucial role in landscape ecology. Following closely behind were the articles by Alvarsson et al. [69] and Axelsson et al. [70], which garnered 616 and 613 citations, respectively. In their studies, Alvarsson et al. [69] reported the positive impact of natural sounds on stress recovery, while Axelsson et al. [70] identified three key components of soundscape—pleasantness, eventfulness, and familiarity—based on responses from 100 participants who listened to 50 soundscape excerpts recorded in various outdoor settings in London and Stockholm. Among the top 10 most frequently cited publications, six focused on soundscape ecology in general, while the remaining four explored the impact of soundscape on humans [27,69,70,72]. When the citation rate, i.e., citations per year, is considered, the highest one is Duarte et al.’s [14] article about soundscape in aquatic environments with over 92 citations per year, followed by the article by Pijanowski et al. [13] on soundscape in the landscape with over 57 citations per year.

Co-authorship analysis indicated that the largest cluster was formed by researchers from North America, with T.A. Mooney and F. Juanes at the forefront of investigating the impact of the ocean soundscape on marine organisms. Notably, J. Kang has emerged as the central figure in soundscape research, possessing 98 direct links and a total link strength of 537. Kang has collaborated directly with 43 researchers and has indirect links with 104 additional soundscape researchers, each of whom has produced ten or more publications in the field, as illustrated in Figure 3. The co-citation analysis by the cited authors revealed three main research groups or clusters (see Figure 4). The largest group, comprising 77 authors, with J. Kang and F. Aletta serving as core members, is centered on soundscapes within urban environments. The second largest group includes core members such as S.D. Simpson, C.A. Radford, and A.N. Popper, and is dedicated to soundscapes in aquatic environments. The third group, featuring core members like A. Farine, B.C. Pijanowski and J. Sueur concentrate on soundscapes in the context of landscape ecology.

The analysis of keyword co-occurrences revealed that the most prominent keywords were “soundscapes” and “soundscape”, followed by “acoustic noise”, “acoustics”, and “noise pollution” as depicted in Figure 5. In general, three main themes emerged from soundscape research: “soundscape(s), acoustic environment, and urban planning”, “noise, animal(s), bioacoustics, biodiversity, passive acoustic monitoring, fish, and bird(s)”, and “human(s), sound, perception, and physiology”. The trend topics plot indicates that COVID-19 and artificial intelligence techniques such as machine learning, deep learning, and convolutional neural networks have gained popularity in the past three years. Additionally, generative artificial intelligence (AI) holds great potential for capturing people’s perceptions through large language models. Its integration into soundscape research could be transformative, especially since both soundscape ecology and human-focused soundscape studies also rely on descriptive methods.

5.1. Implications

This study provides a broad, inclusive map of the evolution of soundscape research across nearly four decades. Beyond identifying prolific authors, institutions, countries, and funders, our results offer valuable insights into the structure and fragmentation of the field, as well as opportunities for greater interdisciplinary integration.

A key implication emerging from the co-authorship and co-citation clusters (Figure 4) is the relative separation between two major intellectual lineages. On one side, we observe a large cluster centered on Kang and his collaborators, whose work focuses on urban soundscape perception, subjective evaluation, acoustic measurements, and the application of standardized frameworks such as ISO 12913. This body of research emphasizes human-centered experiences, acoustic comfort, and policy-relevant metrics for urban planning. On the other side, we see an ecologically oriented cluster led by Farina and Pijanowski, rooted in landscape ecology and bioacoustics. This body of work investigates biodiversity, habitat health, and ecosystem dynamics through passive acoustic monitoring and spectral analysis.

The presence of these two dominant but loosely connected clusters reflects a significant epistemological divide. While both camps operate under the umbrella of soundscape research, their methods, goals, and conceptual assumptions differ considerably. The lack of methodological or co-citation bridges between these clusters suggests that the field is still thematically rich but structurally siloed. This fragmentation limits the potential for holistic understandings of acoustic environments, particularly in emerging domains where urban and ecological concerns increasingly overlap (e.g., nature-based solutions in cities, urban biodiversity monitoring, or the role of biophony in human well-being).

Interestingly, the publication of ISO 12913 in 2014 appears to have catalyzed a methodological consolidation within the perceptual urban soundscape domain. Our temporal analysis suggests a post-2014 increase in studies aligned with ISO principles and in co-authorship networks around Kang and his collaborators. This standardization may support policy adoption and comparability across studies, but may also reinforce disciplinary boundaries if alternative paradigms—such as ecoacoustic indices or artistic representations—are perceived as outside the ISO framework.

From a methodological standpoint, the observed clustering structure also reflects the implications of using a single keyword (soundscape) in our literature search. As discussed in Section 4.5, this approach provides maximal coverage but inevitably introduces definitional ambiguity. The resulting dataset, while rich, includes conceptually distinct strands of research. We acknowledge that future studies could employ stratified or Boolean search strategies (e.g., “soundscape” AND “environmental noise”, “soundscape” AND “bioacoustics”) to more precisely target sub-domains and provide domain-specific bibliometric mappings.

Despite these constraints, our findings offer a valuable baseline for understanding the current landscape of soundscape research. They highlight areas of concentration, identify underexplored intersections, and suggest that soundscape as a research field may benefit from a clearer typological structure, not necessarily in the form of a universal definition, but as a way to guide cross-disciplinary understanding and collaboration. We hope this study serves as a reference point for future efforts to deepen the integration of perceptual, ecological, technological, and sociocultural approaches to soundscape research.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

The study is subject to some limitations. Firstly, it was a cross-sectional bibliometric study that utilized data obtained from Scopus on 26 February 2025. Despite encompassing 5825 journal articles, reviews, and conference papers spanning from 1985 to 2024, the continuous influx of soundscape documents in Scopus will lead to a slight evolution in the themes of soundscape research over time. Therefore, it is recommended that a follow-up bibliometric study be conducted in the coming years. Secondly, conducting a bibliometric analysis using alternative databases and visualization software can yield varying outcomes. Researchers can conduct a similar bibliometric analysis using Web of Science or Dimensions for data sourcing and CiteSpace for visualization to reassess trends and hot topics in soundscape research. Thirdly, researchers may choose to concentrate on a specific sub-category of soundscape, such as urban soundscape [28,81,82,83], rural soundscape and soundscape conservation [84,85,86], tourism soundscape [87,88], ocean soundscape [14,89,90], or soundscapes in landscape ecology [91,92] in a bibliometric analysis. The findings from such an analysis will provide further insights into the trajectory and development of soundscape research within a particular research domain. Fourthly, it is conceivable that generative artificial intelligence tools like Grok, DeepSeek, and ChatGPT-4.0 can be leveraged in future soundscape research endeavors. Furthermore, this paper has not delved into the intricacies of the soundscape. As noted by Sterne [73], Grinfeder et al. [76], and Mitchell et al. [77], the term “soundscape” encompasses various, sometimes conflicting meanings across different fields. Nonetheless, Grinfeder et al. [76] employed a more holistic, functional approach to classify soundscapes into three categories: distal soundscape, proximal soundscape, and perceptual soundscape, based on the source-path-receiver model. In contrast, Sterne’s [73] work aligns with a broader interpretation of soundscapes, emphasizing that it is crucial for understanding how sound gives meaning to spaces and places. This perspective necessitates an acknowledgment of the social disparities introduced by the embodiment of soundscapes. Sterne [73] recognized the historical and cultural relevance of soundscapes, as originally articulated by Schafer [11,12], while critiquing the tendency to favor “natural” sounds over urban sounds. Mitchell et al. [77] broadly define a soundscape as the auditory environment of a specific location, setting, or community, shaped by interactions with non-auditory and contextual factors. Additionally, Mitchell and his associates [93,94] have recently undertaken an important challenge by adopting a unified framework to develop bespoke and reference single index measures of soundscape perception for studies focused on human and urban soundscapes.

6. Conclusions

Humans utilize sound for understanding and perceiving the surroundings, as well as for sharing information and emotions. Additionally, sound affects all living creatures. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the research conducted on the soundscape in recent decades. This study used bibliometric methods to analyze soundscape research published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. The findings indicated that there was a steady increase in publications on soundscape over the last twenty-some years. J. Kang has emerged as the most prolific author, with University College London being the most productive affiliation. Co-citation analysis identified three main research groups: one focused on soundscapes within urban settings, another dedicated to soundscapes in aquatic environments, and a third examining soundscapes in the context of landscape ecology. The analysis of keyword co-occurrences identified three main themes in soundscape research: “soundscape(s), acoustic environment, and urban planning”, “noise, animal(s), bioacoustics, biodiversity, fish, and bird(s)”, and “human(s), sound, perception, and physiology”. Furthermore, a detailed examination of trend topics revealed the recent application of artificial intelligence techniques like deep learning and machine learning, as well as the investigation of biodiversity and passive acoustic monitoring in soundscape studies. It appears that human/urban soundscape and soundscape/acoustic ecology (particularly in open spaces) continue to captivate the interest of researchers. However, it is important to recognize that these two significant research domains, along with underwater soundscapes, necessitate a deep understanding of their distinct spatial and temporal characteristics concerning sound sources, transmission paths, and receivers.