12

MAPPING THE URBAN EXPERIENCE

DIGITALLY

Monica Degen and Manuela Barz

Introduction

Think of a city you have recently visited or currently live in and what comes to mind? Most

likely you think of snapshots of experiences that come and go. For example, a mix of old and

young men laughing, joking and slamming domino stones loudly on concrete tables in

Berkley Square, New York; a Sunday morning, walking leisurely through the narrow passage

ways of the Gothic Quarter in Barcelona and admiring the play of sun and shadows on

balconies above you; the views from London’s Millennium Bridge towards St Paul’s while

trying to avoid bumping into the chatting tourists walking to the Tate Modern. Cities are lived

places that we experience and make sense of through our sensing bodies. We see the physical

shapes and colours of the architecture surrounding us; we can feel the change in temperature

as we cross the road from a sunny spot to the shade; we can hear the voices of people and

traffic around us as our bodies brush past the crowds; and we can smell and taste a latte on

our lips.

The senses situate us geographically and help us to emotionally map our surroundings as they

mediate our contact with the world (Rodaway 1994). It is important to highlight here that

sensing cannot be reduced to a biological feature alone. As we interpret our sensory

perceptions these interpretations reflect and are shaped by the social values of particular

cultures or times. Thus, the moral judgments we link to particular sensory experiences are not

subjective but tend to reflect broader social hierarchies and ideologies of the culture we are

living in. For example, in the 21st century Western city, characterised by odourless and

sanitized public spaces, the smell of manure would be a startling sensation evoking disgust.

Yet, most medieval cities would have smelt of manure, reflecting their agricultural industries,

modes of transportation and lack of sanitation, but their inhabitants would have been more

oblivious to it.

As urban researchers, paying attention to sensory experiences in cities has been important for

our work for two reasons. Firstly, it allows us to understand how people relate to places as

embodied and emotional subjects and to examine the relationship between material

surroundings, feelings and diverse senses of attachment or detachment. Secondly, it permits

us to analyse how different urban professions (including urban planners, designers, architects

and urban marketers) control, elicit or frame particular urban sensations and thus create

particular experiential landscapes in the public spaces of our cities. Consequently, “[a] focus

on the senses in the city allows us to analyse the experience of a city as a political domain

that links the personal lives of its diverse users with broader structural changes in the city’s

politics and economy” (Degen 2014: 93). We must also be aware that planned uses,

sensations and meanings are not set in stone, but constantly transform and change through the

spatial practices of the users in the city, many of which cannot be anticipated beforehand. It is

this fleeting character of urban life which, methodologically speaking, is difficult to capture

using more traditional methods such as interviews.

Over the years, we have been involved in a range of research projects, studying cities as

different as Barcelona or Milton Keynes, London, Cologne or Qatar to mention a few, from a

diversity of perspectives. A common thread for Monica, a cultural sociologist, has been to

understand what makes the unique feel or atmosphere of each city. And, more importantly,

how can we actually capture and represent the rhythms, intensities and the feel of cities? On

the other hand, the aim for Manuela as a digital designer collaborating on these projects has

been to communicate research processes and results to a diversity of audiences, with the goal

of digitally transmitting the reasons why a focus on sensory and temporal experiences matters

to urban redevelopment. A range of methods to study cities are discussed in other chapters of

this book, such as diaries (Chapter 8, this volume); ethnographies (Chapter 5, this volume);

interviews (Chapter 4, this volume) or photography and video (Chapter 10, this volume), yet

none explicitly focuses on how to capture and research the fluctuating, lived sensory

experiences of place. Indeed, in the social sciences there is much work on developing

theoretical insights about how individuals experience urban environments, while less focus

has been given to methodological inquiries (but see Pink 2009).

In this chapter, we start by discussing the benefits of digital mapping as opposed to analogue

maps. We then set out how we used digital mapping and visualizations as a way to challenge

traditional representations of the city. We thereby demonstrate how digital mapping practices

can help with an understanding and analysis of urban landscapes as a multiplicity of

overlapping experiences and meanings.

Digital mapping
Before we answer the question of how we developed our digital mapping to capture the

fluctuating sensescapes of a city or neighbourhood, we need to first clarify the concept of

digital mapping. Let’s briefly examine what maps are and do. Analogue maps tend to be

fixed visualizations, often printed on paper, where the meaning is pre-set and abstract, giving

“an aura of seemingly objective and static spatial representation that all too often served

particular ideological needs” (Lammes 2017). Early examples of sociological mapping based

their outcomes and presentations on statistical data to draw out ‘laws of society’, as seen in

Florence Nightingales polar area diagrams (1858), or to visualise areas of concern such as

Charles Booth’s (1894-99) poverty maps (https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/14/-

0.1174/51.5064/100/0). Cartography has a long history of mapping physical environments

and presenting their specific characteristics to the viewer as facts, rendering maps as “very

powerful forms of data visualisation” that allows the viewer to visualise networks and to

connect data points to their physical contexts of gestation (Grant 2019:163).

However, since the 1970s, critical human geographers have shown how maps are social

constructions and need to be critically examined as practices and relations of power and

knowledge (Harley 1988). Hence, as Harley points out “Deconstruction urges us to read

between the lines of a map – ‘in the margins of the text’ – and through its tropes to discover

the silences and contradictions that challenge the apparent honesty of the image” (Harley

1989: 3 quoted in Crampton 2001: 241). One of the implications of such a critique of maps is

the need to produce maps that allow for multiple perspectives, for example by producing

multiple maps and interactivity between user and maps. Furthermore, it is important to be

transparent about the process of creation, meaning we need to explicitly acknowledge the

tools used to gather data in the research process itself which often tends to recede into the

background of visualisations.
While both digital and analogue maps can be understood as cartographical interfaces, or

points of contact “which are consulted and through which spatial relations are understood and

produced”, digital maps no longer entail or promote static representations. Instead they

“foreground the multi-dimensional and flexible character of the cartographical interface”

(Lammes 2017: 1021) and thus foster new forms of sensory-spatial engagement. Digital

mapping refers to a form of data visualisation adopting computational and visualisation tools

which use maps, graphics and images to make visible spatial patterns and relationships in the

data. Particular to digital maps is that their interfaces “have agency in how meaning is

produced…[and] entice us to produce the landscape we engage with in particular ways as

they invite us to make specific translations that call both the landscape and the map into

being” (Lammes 2017: 1023). As opposed to analogue maps, digital maps invite more

diverse, and possibly more engaged, sensory interactions as we can hover over, click and

select objects, re-play and stop media objects or add and hide information layers.

The idea of analysing data and its visualisation continues to form an integral part of what is

loosely summarised under the term digital humanities and the big data movement of the 21st

century (see for instance Berry 2012; Hayles 2012; Chapter 11, this volume). The increased

use of computational tools and the development and employment of data-generating

applications that dominate every aspect of life within Western societies creates endless

streams of user-generated data in the form of texts, images and videos containing strings of

additional meta-data (such as time and location) that could be incorporated into digital maps.

This incorporation of user-generated data brings into question the cartographer-user

dichotomy. The resulting debates about privacy and data ownership as a result of the

possibilities of big data creation and subsequent mining for business and/or research are
mentioned here only briefly to remind the reader of their ethical responsibilities as

researchers (e.g. Lyon 2003 and Cheney-Lippold 2017). Our concern in the remainder of this

chapter is to draw attention to digital visualisations as a research method that lends itself to

understanding and evoking the experiential dimensions of urban contexts, and to translating

and disseminating research findings.

Mapping the senses digitally

Manuela and Monica first collaborated on a project with Gillian Rose that explored how

people experienced designed urban spaces in Bedford and Milton Keynes, funded by the

Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom (Rose et al 2010; Degen and

Rose 2012). Rose et al reflected on how the website designed by Manuela which drew on our

data was aimed at achieving three goals: “to evoke a sense of the complexity of urban

spatialities; to invite site visitors to engage actively and performatively with the research

materials; and to emphasize the sensory qualities of the environment” (2009: 2099). While

the website, containing interactive 2D and 3D maps, served as a container to capture and

reflect on our findings about the fleeting sensory experiences in British highstreets and to

highlight the complexity of human practices in urban spaces, it was not conceived of as a tool

to think through sensory methodologies or to evoke the multiplicity of urban experiences.

Since then, in subsequent collaborations , we have worked towards these additional goals,

which we will now discuss (see www.sensorycities.com

www.sensorysmithfield.com).

Developing a sensory think-kit

In 2015 Monica received funding to create the Sensory Cities Network over two years which

allowed her to bring together a range of academics from different disciplinary backgrounds

such as geography, history, museum studies and sociology along with urban professionals

such as city museum curators, urban planners, urban marketers and community activists from

three European cities to explore existing and new methods to represent, curate and research

the sensory and emotional realm of the city. Despite the ‘sensual revolution’ (Howes 2005:

1) in the humanities and social sciences there has been a lack of explicit interdisciplinary and

cross-professional exchange on methods to analyse the senses. Over two years, three

workshops where held in London, Cologne and Barcelona, hosted by their respective city

museums. These workshops involved a more formal day of presentations, then followed by a

research day in which participants trialled a range of methodologies that had emerged from

these discussions and participants’ particular interests, to attempt to grasp the fluctuating

sensorial character of a particular street. Our broader aim was to create an experimental space

to exchange and develop ideas. Alongside these workshops we developed a digital research

tool that we described as a sensory think-kit, which offered methodological approximations,

highlighting the explorative and experimental nature of these methods.

During the active research days in the neighbourhoods of Whitechapel in London, Eigelstein

in Cologne and el Raval in Barcelona - chosen because of their similar features of being in

the historical part of town, being redeveloped and attracting migrants and tourists alike -

teams of academics and urban professionals conceived of methodologies to capture the ways

in which the senses structure and are structured by the interaction of perceptual bodies and

material environments producing particular sensescapes. Each neighbourhood and city

produced its own sensory and temporal constellations informed by its history, current urban

challenges and key debates that emerged in our discussions. An initial finding we chose to
represent through our digital sensory think-kit was that sensing is not merely a biological

process, but that our sensing is mediated through cultural frameworks. Working in cross-

professional groups on urban environments quickly revealed that professional training shapes

the way questions are posed, results are observed and what type of information is needed to

qualify the experiences of the sensory landscape. Hence, on our website we divided our

methodological approximations not just into the particular neighbourhoods and cities where

they were developed but moreover divided methodologies into the needs of particular

professions such as academics, museum curators, sensory educators, urban planners and

professionals.

Each city displayed its own sensory emphasis and therefore required differing methodologies,

inviting researchers to reflect on the role and range of cultural transferability of sensory

theoretical and practical frameworks, and mutual emulations. London started with the theme

of urban development and planning, and how the senses can be researched from an

interdisciplinary perspective. Four methodologies were developed and digitally mapped by

Manuela on the website, creating an interactive visualization of these methodologies:

a) Social Media and the making of place: The first methodology examined the ways in
which people use Instagram/Twitter to represent themselves in and in front of

buildings. The main questions were: How does technology shape sensory expressions,

for example through the use of filters? What kind of sensory atmosphere is displayed

through social media? How are emotional connections to places and human

activities/roles represented through people’s photographs? The approach provides a

visual-emotional account of a site through social media. As Instagram aims at

capturing everyday experiences and emotions, the analysis indicates what senses are
 subjectively judged as important in a place and how comfortable people feel in a

certain place (Figure 12.1).

Figure 12.1

b) Standing and sketching: The second method consisted of standing still for 30 minutes
and trying out a range of analogue methods by just using paper and pen. Some

sketched what they could see and made movement notations while another person

drew a list of her immediate sensory impressions. Questions emerged on how to

include movement, temporal relations and the senses in the sketch. So, additionally a

list of the senses experienced standing still in one place was produced and a list of the

snippets of conversations heard was listed to gather the social meanings of a place.

This method tried to get closer to the fluid nature of urban sensing and capture some

of the evasive and temporal aspects of urban life.

c) Mapping the senses: This relied on observational methods. Three maps of

Whitechapel Road were produced. The first one mapped the senses of the observer on

the street: What smellscapes can be identified? What can be seen? What do the

touchscapes consist of? What can be heard? This was complemented by a map with

subjective experiences from people interviewed: What are their feelings about the

space? Do they experience a hostile, friendly, or oppressive environment? The third

step was to create a ‘relationship map’ by asking users of spaces: why do you

experience this space as hostile, friendly or oppressive? The aim of this method was

to create ‘places of translation’ by bringing together the observational maps of the

researcher with the experiences of interviewees using this space.

 d) Observation and evocative interviews: This method consciously reflected the
interdisciplinarity of sensory research by having each researcher observe the same

place for 30 minutes by walking around the space. Researchers then met to compare

their observations. The disciplinary training informed very different observations of

the same place revealing how our disciplinary training shapes how we sense. The

researchers’ observations then fed into shaping an interview schedule to interview

users of the space to evoke the feel of the area (Figure 12.2)..

Figure 12. 2

Our London map online represents an overview of the research methods used by the various

disciplines. It demonstrates the various viewpoints of researchers and their different sensorial

emphasis, distinctly framed through their professional training, when approaching a research

project. It provides the viewer with different perspectives, through layered mapping, of how

interdisciplinarity offers a multiplicity of approaches to urban experiences.

In Cologne, the themes and discussions from London were developed to understand how

particular senses frame the perception of places differently, while simultaneously uniting to

form a cohesive identity. Here Manuela developed an interactive map reflecting the city of

vision, touch, smell, sound and taste. Each sense was researched through multiple methods

which Manuela layered digitally. Images, writing, sounds, arrows and connections allow us to

see the multiplicity of sensory perceptions which produce particular experiences and feels of

place. For the purpose of this chapter we foreground the digital map exploring sound.

The methodological approximations developed for the city of sound are represented digitally

to confer the temporal and rhythmical nature of sounds. Cities have rhythms and sounds
change over 24 hours as well as with the seasons. Sound sources mix and create their own

symphonies. In winter, inside and outside sounds are separated while in summer open doors

and windows encourage blending. Although sound levels can be measured and assessed –

sound perception is subjective. The team looked at a particular part of the street first and

recorded different sound sources to present a soundtrack of that spot. It became evident that

whilst some sources provided more constant streams (such as ventilation, distant traffic, an

accordion player), others were fading in and out (such as trains, cars, people passing by), or

created sound events (such as a bell on a bicycle, a burst of laughter). The sound recorders

picked up everything in range, as opposed to humans who tend to filter out, concentrate on

particular sounds, or react to sudden event sounds. Recording provided researchers with

references - copies of specific sensory information - yet removed them from their physical

context. When sensory information is moved out of space and time vital contextual sensory

information is lost which has to be recreated in digital mapping. Therefore, the team took

images of sound sources as additional sound references to present later. The digital map

offers layers of information that the user can engage with and which highlight the multiple

rhythms identified (Figure 12.3).

Figure 12. 3

Lastly, in Barcelona the methodological focus was on how to research, curate and represent

the power structures and resistances which are produced through sensory and temporal

experiences in urban environments. Again, we divided participants into groups with the task

of engaging different audiences in the research process. The guiding question was: How are

power relations shaped sensorially on a street? While the London fieldwork focused on

multi-modal sensing and the Cologne fieldwork developed attention to the sensory regimes

created by each sense, the aim of the Barcelona workshop was to think about how to make
the importance of sensory experiences tangible for diverse audiences and how to represent

the findings in a meaningful way.

Five distinct audiences were identified: children, tourists, locals, museum curators and policy

makers. Each audience required different types of sensory information and data which framed

the data collection methods. For example, in one group we asked 13-16 year old teenagers to

map the way in which their sensory experiencing framed their attachments or detachments to

place, therefore the research methodology needed to be designed on their terms. The main

question was how were the 13-16 year olds to collect the data and how structured should the

project’s task be. For example:

a) more unstructured / observing task: give them a camera /recorder and ask them to move

around capturing whatever interests them personally. The data comes from their current

physical use of the space and their movement through it;

b) more structured / game playing task: offer them an imaginary scenario, for example, a

global fashion brand wants to create a new perfume based on the ‘authentic’ smells and feel

of el Raval. The task is to analyse the smells and pitch the results to the client. The data

comes from their interpretations on what the smells of the space mean to them;

c) more structured / analytical task: asking them to analyse and mark pleasant and unpleasant

sensory experiences of spaces using different coloured chalk – for example circling areas of

particular smells or identifying obstacles in the designed environment (Figure 12.4).

Figure 12. 4
Manuela was then in charge of translating the methods developed for the different audiences

into a digital interactive map. The first task was to localise research results within maps and

connect the various drawings, images and sound samples with representations of physical

space to allow for better viewer immersion. Secondly, Manuela had to find appropriate ways

of layering and juxtaposing information to highlight how different groups experienced power

relations, or could learn to understand power relations through the exploration of the map.

For instance, the representation for locals included the juxtaposing of the very different

experiences of a tourist and a local. The map for policy makers on the other hand highlighted

the various spatial features and human activities enabled or prohibited within the space, while

also explaining the research method in more detail (Figure 12.5) .

Figure 12. 5

Mapping the Feel of Place

For this research, we produced a series of evocative maps which placed a great emphasis on

the lived experiences of respondents within a specific urban environment to map the feel of

place (www.sensorysmithfield.com). In contrast to the projects mentioned above, we did not

represent our methodology or the direct physical space but aimed to evoke and translate

contextual qualitative data in the form of sensory spatial experiences of specific social

groups, including their individual and shared memories. The maps were also conceived of as

visual aids that highlight the importance of sensory and temporal experiences in framing the

identity of places to render it more accessible and comprehensible to a wider audience. The

maps were disseminated as webpages (written in html) for greater audience reach and
contained interactive and animated graphical elements (using JavaScript) to superimpose data

layers (toggle on/off) and thereby highlight distinct characteristics of the research data.

There are specific challenges in visualising sensory data. First of all, capturing the fleeting

nature of senses and their occurrence in specific moments in time, such as seasonally or at

different times of day. Furthermore, the subjective, interconnected and holistic nature of

sensing itself, including cultural and social dimensions, or multiple senses working together,

needs to be taken into consideration. A second challenge lies in translating specific sensory

data from a physical to a digital space as “the interface changes what and how we see, how

we experience and interact with reality and how this reality is reconfigured through the

computer” (Pold 2005: np in Lammes 2017:1022). Whilst auditory and visual data can be

easily captured and played back in their “original” form (ignoring the specific settings and

characteristics of recording tools here), smells require translation into a textual or visual form

to be able to be represented and explored in the digital realm. Thirdly, sensory data is

removed from its context through the recording process and a simple playback does not offer

a holistic re-experience. The fourth challenge consists of the researcher and visualiser often

not being the same person, meaning that the visualiser is not necessarily embedded in the

research process and data creation. Therefore, a further translation process happens between

the research team and the visualiser. The research team needs to communicate clearly what it

aims to represent through the digital mapping while the visualiser tries to recreate complex

experiential and temporal patterns. The fifth challenge is anticipating the needs of the users or

viewers of a visualisation, including their cultural and social backgrounds, but also their

ability to use interactive devices and media. To respond to the various challenges, we decided

to use a cartographic approach linked to a series of interactive digital maps to provide

contextual awareness.
The first map (Figure 12.6) concentrated on visualising the historical development of the

urban form. This was done by superimposing various historical maps which blend from one

to the other as the map is played in a linear fashion. It highlights a constantly evolving

network of infrastructures, such as streets and other means of transportation, and marks the

emergence of relevant historical landmarks while simultaneously displaying the

disappearances of other features such as the river Fleet or a nearby prison, at very specific

moments in time. All of these form part of a collective spatial memory that has left traces in

the urban landscape. The map also highlights retained experiential constellations which

therefore remain visible in successive maps, such as the consistent street patterns. In addition,

the map can be explored in more detail by selecting a specific time period. The viewer can

then read more about significant historical developments responsible for changes to the urban

fabric as well as listen to some embedded sound samples to enhance her awareness of sensory

transformations in the area, such as the sound of cattle being replaced by the sound of traffic.

Figure 12.6

Details about the various structural landmarks that highlight a particular spatial memory in

this area can be explored in the second map through simple selection processes. We decided

to use two maps for historical references as information became too dense and obscured the

message we were trying to convey.

The third map (Figure 12.7) contains significant sensory information such as smells, sounds,

and textures and allows the viewer to decide which information to superimpose over a

contemporary spatial map. The viewer can overlay sources to achieve a more holistic sensory

re-experience or view a single sensory source at a time. Visual objects such as graphics,
images and text were used as stand-ins for the sensory data obtained from research

observations to remind the viewer that this is a summary – a coding and grouping - of

individual’s sensory experiences over longer time periods. These visual objects highlight

inherent sensory characteristics through two devices. Firstly, objects were grouped by source

of origin of the sensory experience, in other words were the experiences produced by

humans, material structures and technology, or nature. These three groupings were colour

coded. Colours to classify the sources of experiences were obtained from the colours of the

market. The fleeting nature of some sensory experiences is conveyed by using blurred circles

to show smells and animations to highlight the movement of specific sound sources through

space. Textures are displayed when the cursor hovers over specific areas of the map to

remind the user of how such data is experienced through predominately (though not

exclusively) touch and vision in real life.

Figure 12. 7

The fourth map tried to capture the main findings of our research, namely the intense

juxtaposition of histories, times, social groups, sensescapes and individual and group

experiences that define this area of London (Degen & Lewis 2019). To evoke this, we

constructed six fictional personas to summarise our data on key sensory experiences and

engagements of distinct social groups with different areas at different times of the day or

week in and around Smithfield Market. The aim was not to create an encompassing map but

to evoke the many different ways in which this vibrant area shapes strong feelings of

attachment in different user groups from office workers, to residents, market workers, visitors

or transient users such as cab drivers or couriers.

Figure 12.8 provides a choice of spatial itineraries that the viewer can follow. It highlights

not only social practices and spatial engagements of particular social groups but also reflects

in more detail subjective spatial experiences within the area. Important here was the ability of

the viewer to superimpose significant routes, indicated by differently sized dots, for the

selected groups in order to demonstrate the importance of specific urban structures and allow

for comparisons between users. The map allows the viewer to explore significant locations

mentioned by respondents, and links with the second map. It further reflects on and visualises

the contextual interviews as a distinct qualitative research method by adding relevant images

and quotes along the route of a specific respondents group and thereby displays how

Smithfield’s sensescapes distinctly shape individual and group experiences.

Figure 12.8

The fifth map – Figure 12.9 - evokes the soundscape as an example of the sensory changes

within a 24 hour time window. We employed a sound designer to record sounds over a 24-

hour period at key points around Smithfield Market which then were edited into a loop. The

sound was recorded using a binaural recorder, which records in a 360 degree spectrum, which

produces a more engaging listening experience. It allows the user to immerse into a distinct

spatial context through the exploration of auditory memory. The user can select a specific

time to experience how the rhythms of the sound evolve and view a montage of images which

together evoke the distinct atmospheres of place. The sound is enhanced and the context of

creation is rendered more comprehensible through the addition of textual and visual

information to allow for a more holistic experience. Notes made by the recording artist were

also added to reflect on the process of data creation and also to account for the individuality

and subjectivity of the researcher as a distinct layer in the research process.

Figure 12.9

Conclusions

One of the biggest challenges for researchers of urban sensory and temporal experiences has

been to find ways to represent these more visceral, corporeal and emotional qualities that

compromise urban life: “The difficulty lies not so much in how to communicate sensory,

visceral experiences verbally but, more importantly how to ‘translate’ these non-linear and

non-narrative moments of experiencing and being in the world” (Degen 2014: 98). We

suggest in this chapter that digital mapping and visualisations might offer one way to capture

and render the fleeting nature of urban experiencing tangible to a variety of audiences. Digital

mapping invites “users to perform certain bodily actions that are then inscribed in it and

become mediated through it” (Lammes 2017:1024).

The interactivity of digital mapping allows for more elasticity between sensory research and

its representation as it not only allows users to explore and retrace the steps of urban

explorations – but to create her own. It allows us to communicate complexity through

techniques of information layering which creates different viewpoints on research data

through the inclusion of various subjective experiences and sensescapes, including those of

the researcher, and thus fosters multiple interpretations. As Lammes (2017: 1021) highlights

digital mapping interfaces do not just represent spatial relations “[r]ather, they co-produce

‘spatial formations’ (Thrift,1996) and are mediators via which changing images are produced,

combined and merged in ever shifting spatial associations”. This chapter discussed and

reflected upon what it is possible to achieve through digital mapping, highlighting some of
the challenges of conducting this sort of research. Ultimately mapping urban experiences

digitally has the potential to offer a new way of thinking about the felt politics of everyday

urban living.

We would like to thank Camilla Lewis, Isobel Ward, Astrid Swenson and our participants for

inspiration and insights.

The work discussed here was funded by AHRC, British Academy and ESRC.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why is it important to research urban experiences?

The senses reveal urban life as an embodied, active and constantly transforming process. The

sensory entanglements or our bodies and urban materialities produce our sense of place and

our sense of self. While cities are of course material, political and economic environments a

focus on sensory experiences reveals how broader structural changes affect social life and are

experienced in daily life. A key difficulty identified by urban professionals, from architects to

policy makers, has been how to adequately find a language to map, reflect and, to an extent,

quantify sensory experiences. Partly because of their ephemeral nature but also because

evaluations of sensory perception are linked to questions of aesthetics and taste. Urban
practitioners and policy makers suggested the need for more robust feedback mechanisms

pre- and post- planning changes. The senses are crucial in mapping the socio-economic

stratification of areas both in terms of promising what is to come and in attracting or

detracting certain social groups and uses of the public space. Practitioners and policy makers

agreed that knowledge and awareness of the sensory is not adequately embedded in urban

policy and is hampered by a lack of understanding of how people perceive and understand the

city. Digital sensory visualizations might be a first step towards this.

2. Why can it be important to digitally map and visualise sensory urban experiences?

As described in the last question, problems and difficulties in shaping urban spaces are often

rooted in communication between the stakeholders (including inhabitants, policy-makers,

etc.). The creation of the right feedback loops before and after changes to the urban fabric

could improve this. Digital maps, as both projects discussed here highlight, are a visual aid

that render the actual research process and its results more accessible and comprehensible to

wide, but also specific, audiences. It is also important for digital maps to be conceived with

specific audiences in mind such as academics, urban professionals, museum curators.

3. What are the differences between (dynamic) quantitative data visualisations and more

qualitative data visualisations as the maps discussed here?

Computational power allows the analysis and transformation of large quantitative data sets

(big data) into visualisations (Manovich 2010). Some are being analysed and transformed in

real-time, to create dynamic data visualisations that update according to the data streams they

receive. Examples for such mapping projects entail the use of traffic data, hotel or taxi
bookings, house prices or Instagram images such as “On Broadway” (http://on-

broadway.nyc/) or “London – the information capital” (Cheshire and Uberti 2014). The

projects discussed in this chapter highlight an important alternative potential for data

visualisation. They provide a way to link in depth academic research with new techniques

and practices of visualisation that are emerging such as data journalism and artistic project to

tell alternative stories and approaches to urban life.

4. What should one keep in mind when trying to create interactive digital maps to

visualise urban experiences?

From a visualising artist point of view it is important to understand the software you are

working with, what can it do and what are its limitations. Manuela has been working for

years with Adobe programs but there are a variety of other free programs/apps available that

allow you to achieve similar results. Additionally, there are apps that allow for things like the

integration of sound samples and textual descriptions such as freesound

(https://freesound.org/) or Mapit GS. So you don’t necessarily need to have programming or

graphic skills, but it helps having a basic understanding of both. Whilst apps can add data for

you, they might not provide the visual feel you are after, being too restrictive and reductive.

When creating your own graphics, texts and images think very carefully about the message

you are trying to convey. Colours, for instance, can reinforce power relations or have

undesired cultural associations. Also important is the right ordering of information on

specific maps and layers. Each visualisation is already an extreme reduction of reality and the

context of research. Therefore, check if information is grouped correctly? Do maps contain

too little or too much information? And lastly, think about your interactions. Can they help to
convey a certain feeling or sense? Is every click necessary or does the user get lost in my

maps? Be patient, observe and try not to lead your user!

5. What are the virtues and limits of using digital visualisations to map urban

experiences?

The ability to use digital visualisations as a communication tool is a great advantage. Maps

enable the exploration of different points of view, spatial memories and urban experiences

whilst also enabling us to appreciate the origins of data and research methods. Limitations are

of course set by technology, and the translation processes required to render certain senses

legible in the digital realm but also to close the gaps between actual context and digital

representation.

6. How should academics best work with a digital designer and vice versa?

As an academic you are the research expert and know best why you have used distinct

research methods and which data samples illustrate your findings and results best. Listen to

your designer about the possibilities of how data can be visualised, combined and made

legible for others. Develop mapping ideas together and let the designer experience the space

herself. Discuss how you feel maps could look or find sensory examples to communicate

your feelings to her. Be aware that the first mapping idea might not be the best. Be open to

experiment!
As a digital designer be aware of the unique skill set you are offering but keep in mind that

the content expert is the academic. Therefore, immerse yourself into the urban environment

as a designer. Having an understanding of the research methods and aims of a specific project

is very important. Offer different solutions and do not be discouraged when the first ideas end

up in the bin. Be patient and keep in mind that the researcher might not know what they want

exactly, advise what is digitally possible and be aware of user experiences. Try being as open

as possible, providing sketches rather than finished maps to communicate solutions. You are

more likely to change ideas when working with prototypes. Lastly, test your maps on your

anticipated audience to understand if you have met their intellectual and interactive needs.

Follow Up References

Back, L. and Purwar, N. (2012) Live Methods. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Thought-

provoking articles that discuss how to capture the vibrancy and fleetingness of social life

and offer methodological suggestions that engage with art, storying, the digital and

design.

Howes, D. andClassen, C. (2014) Ways of Sensing. London: Routledge. Astimulating

overview of the cultural, historical and political dimensions of the senses in society.

http://bigbangdata.somersethouse.org.uk/ - Big bang data exhibition

http://manovich.net - Writings and projects of Lev Manovich.

 http://sensorymaps.com - Work by Kate McLean in regards to smells.

www.sensorycities.com - Key findings of the AHRC funded ‘Sensory Cities’ network

including talks and reports.

http://sensorythinktank.com/ - A sensory toolkit for academics and practitioners to

illustrate a diversity of methods to research urban experiences with illustrated examples

from the AHRC funded ‘Sensory Cities’ network and beyond.

www.sensorysmithfield.com - A digital resource that illustrates a series of evocative

maps visualising the various temporal flows, sensory engagements and fluctuating

atmospheres that characterise Smithfield Market.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/data-visualisation

http://www.visualcomplexity.com - Different projects visualising complex networks

References

Berry, D. M. (ed) (2012) Understanding Digital Humanities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chesire, J. and Uberti, O. (2014) The Information Capital: 100 maps and graphics that will

change how you view the city. London: Penguin Books.

Crampton, J. (2001) Maps as social constructions: power, communication and visualisation.

Progress in Human Geography, 25: 235-52.

Degen, M. and Lewis, C. (2019) The changing feel of place: an analysis of temporal

atmospheres in Smithfield Market, London. Cultural Geographies. Forthcoming.

Degen, M. (2014) The everyday city of the senses, in R. Paddison and E. McCann (eds)

Cities and Social Change. London: Sage, pp. 92-111.

Degen, M. and Rose, G. (2012) The sensory experi: encing of urban design: the role of

walking and Perceptual memory. Urban Studies, 49: 3271-87.

Grant, R. (2019) Data Visualsation: Charts, Maps, and Interactive Graphics. Boca Raton,

Florida: CRC Press

Harley, J.B. (1988) Maps, knowledge and power, in D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (eds) The

Iconography of Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 277-312.

Hayles, N. K. (2012) How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogesis.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Howes, D. (2005) The Empire of the Senses. Oxford: Berg.

Lammes, S. (2017) Digital mapping interfaces: from immutable mobiles to mutable images.

New Media & Society, 19: 1019-33.

Manovich, L. (2010) What is Visualisation. Available under: manovich. net/content/04-

projects/064-what-is-visualization/61_article_2010.pdf. last accessed 10/02/2019

Nightingale, F. (1858) Notes on Matters Affecting Health, Efficiency and Hospital

Administration of the British Army. London Harrison and Sons

Pink, S. (2009) Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage.

Rodaway, P. (1994) Sensuous Geographies. London: Routledge.

Rose, G., Degen, M. and Basdas, B. (2010) More on ‘big things’: building events and

feelings. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35: 334-49.

Rose, G., Degen, M. and Basdas, B. (2009) Using Websites to disseminate research on Urban

Spatialities. Geography Compass, 4: 2098-2108.