CAPÍTULO II. Marco regulatorio contemporáneo
D. LAS DIFERENCIAS MÁS CARACTERÍSTICAS ENTRE EL MODELO EUROPEO Y EL
)’ W18
Occasionally, people detected smells of people, food, rain, building construction and materials. Some people described the perceived smellscape on West Square as normal urban smells in cities. For example,
‘The smellscape here is OK to me, very similar to the normal smells perceived on the road. The Square is next to a busy road. Well, the air quality in Wuhan is not good in general. Today is stuffy, which also affects, I think. (
) ()
, )’ W06
Summary
It can be summarised that the smell environment in the Wuchange case was dominated by mixed smells of traffic, food, waste and cigarette smoke across all stops. Air quality were frequently described, i.e. stuffy, stale and polluted. Meanwhile, the crowds of people were found as a distinct feature in the Wuchang case, producing behavioural smells, i.e. smells of instant noodles, smelly feet and sweating. Such smells were very different from the Sheffield case and made the overall smell environment in the Wuchange case more complex and unpleasant.
4.3.5 People’s descriptions of smellscape pleasantness in WRTC
As in Sheffield, participants in the Wuchang smell walks were asked to do a smellscape pleasantness scale-rating survey at all stops. The data has been converted into Chart 4.4, which demonstrates the average rating (mean value) of smellscape pleasantness and the variation of people’s ratings (error bar indicating standard deviation around mean) of smellscape pleasantness at each stop in Wuchang. From the mean values, it can be concluded
that the overall smellscape quality in Wuchang Railway Transit Centre was rated as unpleasant.
Chart 4.4 Mean value of participants’ smellscape pleasantness ratings at each stop in the Wuchang case, with error bars indicating standard deviation around the mean
Comparing mean values of pleasantness ratings at all stops, most participants felt the smellscape on West Square was more pleasant than any other places on the walk. In their descriptions, most people used words ‘not bad’ and ‘good’ to describe the smellscape quality on West Square. The surrounding environment and people’s behaviours on West Square were often included in their rationales for it being ‘not bad’ or ‘good’. For example, one participant said:
‘It’s not bad. There are too many people in the station, but too few waiting spaces and seats. Look, places with seats are all full of people. The smell environment is no good.
And there are various kinds of people passing through who make me feel unsafe. (
)
( () )’ W04
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Smellscape pleasantness ra@ng
Smellwalking stop Mean
As described, there are some planting and landscape elements on West Square, such as bushes, trees, flowerbeds and benches. These elements were found to have a positive influence on people’s perceptions of the overall smell environment. For example:
‘With these plants, I feel the air quality and smellscape here will be better, at least psychologically. (
)’ W01
The smellscape at the Metro station, Commercial Zone and Transit Hall were rated nearly neutral. The smellscape in the Metro station was frequently evaluated as ‘no smells/nothing really/nothing particular’ or ’good’. Unlike the other stops, only a few smells were occasionally detected in the Metro station. However, the ratings fluctuated, ranging from very pleasant to very unpleasant. People who gave a low rating were influenced by their preconceptions of unpleasant smellscapes in underground spaces. For example:
‘Generally, smellscapes in underground spaces are not very good. In particular, when there are many people in a warm weather, you can smell the mixed smells from
people. Very unpleasant. ( ( )
)’ W20
However, in the Commercial Zone, where the dominant smells detected all related to the catering environment/activities, most people used words ‘it depends’ when evaluating the smellscape. In this case, people valued most the appropriateness of the perceived smellscapes for personal and physical contexts. For example:
‘I think this smell environment quite pleasant, probably because I feel a bit hungry now. If I was very full, I would feel unpleasant be in this smell environment. ( ,
) ) , ()
)’ W04
Compared with the Commercial Zone, more smells were detected in the Underground Transit Hall, resulting from various kinds of smell sources, like people, restaurants and cars. People frequently described the smellscape in the Underground Transit Hall as “mixed smells”.
Similar descriptions were also found when evaluating the smellscape of Railway Station Ticket Hall and Waiting Concourse. People seemed to dislike mixed smells in an environment. The purity of smell environment could be a factor that influences people’s evaluations. For example:
‘Honestly, I don’t hate food smells. But when they are mixed with car fumes, I found it really unpleasant. I would like simple smell environment which won’t mix good smells
with bad ones. ( ( ) ,
( ( , )’
W13
People’s evaluations of smellscape pleasantness at the East Square Bus Station, Railway Station Ticket Hall and Concourse were similar in finding them slightly unpleasant. When evaluating the smellscape of the East Square Bus Station, people frequently used words like
‘all right’, ‘not bad’ and ‘no particular feelings’. The smell environment at this stop was considered normal and non-intrusive, as commonly perceived in urban environments. People were used to such smellscapes and consider it a background level. For example:
‘I am used to this kind of smell environment. It’s not something that makes me feel so unpleasant. And I can feel the wind there. It’s all right.( (
) )’ W07
‘It’s ok, no particular feelings. It is just what you can smell everyday in cities, traffic.
But, it is nothing bad or good. ( )
( )’ W12
People’s evaluations of smellscape pleasantness in the Railway Ticket Hall fluctuated between ‘smelly’ and ‘not bad’. People who disliked the smellscape there were influenced by the lack of fresh air, which was also frequently described by people in the Concourse. Both places are enclosed space and depend on air conditioning systems. The naturalness and freshness of air was again indicated as important factors in evaluating smellscapes. For example:
‘Well, the smells are quite mixed. Although they have air conditioning here, I still think the ventilation is not good. Since it is an enclosed space, the air quality here can’t be as good as outdoors. So is the smell environment. (
) ) ( )
)( ( )’ W09
The physical environment in the concourse is similar to the Ticket Hall, accommodating large number of people in an enclosed space. People’s ratings were generally very similar at these two stops - a bit unpleasant. The Concourse differed from the Ticket Hall, and the smells detected were more various and mixed. When evaluating smells, people were highly influenced by the crowded environment and other people’s behaviours. For example:
‘It is still the smell of air conditioners. The air quality is similar to outdoors. But, the smellscape is very chaotic in general. I don’t know whether it is the smell of people or smell of rubbish or smell of food that makes it worse. The smell is so mixed. This concourse is just a huge box, where the ventilation definitely won’t be so good. The air conditioning system, at least, makes no difference from the perspective of the smell
environment. ( ) (
) ) ) )
) (
)’ W08
The smellscapes of the Connection Tunnel and Underground Waiting area were similarly rated as unpleasant. People used words ‘stuffy’, ‘dirty’, ’crowded’ and ‘unpleasant’ to evaluate the smellscape. They were very influenced by the air quality and spatial scale in the Tunnel. For example:
‘The space is too narrow, which makes me feel that I can’t breathe properly. It is so stuffy that gives me headache. I don’t think it is an acceptable smell environment. I really don’t like it. It is too stuffy and unventilated. ( (
( (
( )’ W01
Compared to the Connection Tunnel, people’s pleasantness ratings in Underground Waiting area was relatively more pleasant but there were variations. People were influenced by both positive and negative elements making up the smellscape at this stop, such as natural ventilation and lighting, plants, restaurants, seats and toilet smells. For example:
‘I think nobody will like such a smell environment, particularly, in public spaces. I don’t think toilets should be so central. Though there are some trees around, they are just visually more decent, but, nothing to do with the air or smells. (
), ( ,
) )
)’ W03
‘Except the smells from the toilet, other stuff is fine with me. I would like to rest here since there is an open yard at the side. It is less depressing than the inside. And they
also have trees around. ( ()
) , )
)’ W08
The Internal Taxi Centre was rated as having the most unpleasant smellscape. Most people evaluated it as ‘very bad’, ‘intolerable’ and ’annoying’. The dominant smells of traffic and
waste were most disliked by participants. Other elements at this stop were also negatively perceived, such as poor lighting, ventilation and location. For example:
‘Very bad. Firstly, these smells are very unpleasant. It is very stuffy here. Then, the lighting is not good, very depressing. And you have to hear the noise from taxi engines and people around. When waiting in such environment, I will easily be irritated. ( (
] (
)’ W10
To conclude, people’s evaluations of pleasantness and ratings of smellscapes in Wuchang were greatly influenced by the crowded environment and other people’s behaviours. People’s preconceptions of and preferences for smells have significant influences on their evaluations of smellscapes, and natural elements, like wind and greenery, have positive influences.. The smell-walks indicated that spatial types, scales and layout have indirect impacts on people’s evaluations: participants considered the function and convenience of the physical environment when evaluating smellscapes. Meanwhile, poor lighting and noise have indirect negative impacts on people’s evaluations of the overall smellscape.
4.4 Conclusion
In-depth descriptions of smellscape in the two cases, Sheffield and Wuchang, have been presented in this Chapter to provide raw materials from people’s own descriptions to help understand people’s perceptions and evaluations of the smell environment. The Chapter started with an introduction to the selected cases, including history, functions and space layout, as well an explanation of the smell walking routes, with descriptions and photos of the physical environmental features observed.
Ten categories of smells have been detected and classified in the cases with frequencies of detecting each category of smell at each stop along the smell-walking route in each case, indicating a diversity of smell environments across different functional spaces and varied
types of smells and intensities. Traffic-related smells and cigarette smoke are found dominant in both Sheffield and Wuchang. Nature-related smells are found to be a distinct feature in the Sheffield case, while mixed smells of waste, food and people are found particular in the Wuchang case.
People’s ratings and descriptions of smellscape pleasantness have been summarised, and indicate that the overall smellscape quality in Sheffield Bus Interchange and Railway Station is much better than in Wuchang Railway Transit Centre. . The mean value of pleasantness ratings in Sheffield is around 4.5, whilst in Wuchang it is around 3. People described the smellscape in Sheffield mostly as ‘neutral’, ‘clean’ and ‘fresh’. In contrast, the smellscape in Wuchang was described mostly as ‘stuffy’, ‘mixed’ and ‘annoying’.
The next Chapter begins to explore ways of understanding and interpreting smellscape through discussing components influencing people’s perceptions of the smell environment in the studied cases.