EL NACIMIENTO DE UNA INICIATIVA INTERNACIONAL. LA PROPAGACIÓN DE

This Section presents an overview of people’s descriptions of the smell environment in the SRSBI and people’s ratings of smellscape pleasantness at each stop along the smell-walking routes, as shown in Chart 4.2. As explained in Chapter 3, a smellscape pleasantness survey is included in the smell-walking process, asking participants to make scaled rankings of their perceptions of the pleasantness of the smell environment at each stop. The scale ranged from 1 (very unpleasant), 2 (unpleasant), 3 (slightly unpleasant), 4 (neither pleasant nor unpleasant), 5 (slightly pleasant), 6 (pleasant) to 7 (very pleasant). Collected ratings from all participants were converted into Chart 4.2, which includes two types of information: the average rating (mean value) of smellscape pleasantness at each stop, and the variation of people’s ratings of smellscape pleasantness at each stop. According to the mean value, the overall smellscape in the Sheffield case is rated above neutral, being slightly pleasant. There are only two stops that are rated negatively: Stop 4, the Railway Station Platform and Stop 6, the Railway Station Taxi Rank. Stop 7, Sheaf Square, is rated as the most pleasant along the smell-walking route, where people’s ratings varied between 4

(neither pleasant nor unpleasant) and 7 (very pleasant). With the information provided in Chart 4.2, the following part of this Section will illustrate people’s language descriptions in answer to the question: ‘How pleasant is this smell environment?’

Chart 4.2 Mean value of participants’ smellscape pleasantness ratings at each stop in the Sheffield case, with error bars indicating standard deviation around the mean

People used words, such as ’not very nice’, ‘not fresh’ and ‘unpleasant’ to evaluate the smellscape. Similar words were used at the Taxi Rank, like ’very bad’, ‘not fresh’,

‘unhealthy’ and ‘not very pleasant’. People showed more tolerance for train fumes on platforms, because ‘expected’, ‘clean’ and ‘fresh to look at’. However, the variation around mean value shows that people’s pleasantness rating at the Railway Platform fluctuated widely between pleasant and unpleasant. Some participants found the smellscape at the railway platform more pleasant and personally meaningful, associated with travel memories and past experiences. For example:

‘It is like an internal smell. But it is but quite intense. It is like the underground smell… Personally I like this smell. As I told you, I used to live in such environment. I am familiar with the smells of train stations.’ S04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Smellscape pleasantness ra@ng

Smellwalking stop Mean

The most pleasant smellscape was rated at Sheaf Square, where the smell of water and fresh air dominated. The higher ratings were found at the Station Terrace, Tram Stop and Sheaf Square, which indicated that people tended to experience smellscapes as more pleasant in outdoor environments where natural elements occur. People frequently used words like ‘fresh’, ‘nice’, ‘clean’ ‘happy’, ‘calming’ and ‘relaxed’ at these three places. For example:

‘I think it is quite clean because it is water. It associates with cleanness. And quite fresh. It reminds[me of], not a pool, but swimming pool, I can smell a little bit of the chlorine. It is quite clean smell. I do like swimming, so I don’t mind smelling chlorine. But I know some people hate the smell of chlorine.’S07

The Railway Station Concourse, where food smells were dominant, was also rated as relatively high for smellscape pleasantness.. The STD bar indicates that people tended to share a common perception of smellscape as being slightly pleasant at this stop.

People frequently used words like ‘familiar’, ‘inviting’, ‘welcoming’, ‘tempting’,

‘expected’ and ‘relaxed’ to evaluate it. At the same time, people were very influenced by the architectural form and atmosphere in the Concourse. For example:

‘The smell of coffee kind of dominates here…it is like a nice and relaxing smell. I probably go over and buy a coffee when I smell it. Well, it is kind of making me walking through the direction towards it…I am calm, my mood doesn’t change, I am calm and relaxed…I feel more familiar here than the Bus Station, I think sometimes it is what you are more familiar with…’S05

Compared to the Railway Station Concourse, the Bus Interchange Stand was rated as less pleasant. Smells were detected less frequently and nothing was dominant. The mean value and STD bar of people’s smellscape pleasantness at this stop suggests that people shared a common evaluation of such a smell environment as neutral. The most frequently used words to evaluate the smellscape in the Interchange Stand were

‘normal’, ‘expected’, ‘clean’ and ‘neutral’. For example:

‘Fairly neutral. Nothing smells very strong. They are sort of background.

Nothing dominant. It feels like the environment is generally clean. I suppose it is hygiene, things like that would be more pleasant to be in.’ S01

Generally, people’s descriptions and ratings of smellscape pleasantness in the Sheffield case suggest that the smells of natural elements could be preferred in all functional spaces in urban intermodal transit spaces, whilst traffic fumes and cigarette smoke are mostly perceived as unpleasant. When evaluating environmental qualities, people’s smell preferences have a significant influence. Food smells and some smells associated with cleanness can increase overall smellscape pleasantness. Potentially, air quality related health concerns also have direct influence people’s perceptions of smellscape pleasantness. In addition, it is indicated from people’s descriptions that good visual and auditory interactions can increase their sense of pleasantness of the surrounding smell environment. Further analysis of components influencing people’s perceptions of the smell environment will be discussed in Chapter 5 and indicators influencing people’s evaluations will be discussed in Chapter 6.