Influence of soundscape on quality of work from home during the second phase of the pandemic in Brazil

1 Introduction

In 2019, the world confronted an unprecedented pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The emergence and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Brazil brought a profound transformation in the national landscape, significantly impacting the lives of its population and the socioeconomic dynamics of the country. Numerous factors contributed to this evolution and the rapid globalization and interconnectedness of our modern world facilitated the swift transmission of infectious diseases across national boundaries [1].

Brazil is one of the most populous countries in the world, and the state of São Paulo accounts for 21.9% of the nation’s total population [2]. As COVID-19 rapidly disseminated globally, it reached Brazil in the first half of 2020 [3]. This generated quick responses from Brazilian authorities and the population. São Paulo faced substantial challenges in managing the pandemic, becoming the epicenter of the crisis within the country. To curtail the spread of COVID-19, social distancing measures were enforced in the state, and isolation rates ranged from 59 to 55% during the initial phase of the pandemic (from March to May 2020) and from 48 to 51% during the second phase (from March to May 2021) [4]. These measures aimed to reduce interpersonal interactions, thus mitigating the risk of contagion.

Nonetheless, the isolation measures have also generated significant economic and social challenges. Many sectors of the economy had to quickly adapt by implementing remote work to maintain their operations. Only essential services, such as health and food sectors, continued in-person operations. This change in work dynamics directly impacted the economy and altered people’s work patterns. Homes, normally regarded as places of solace and relaxation, were transformed into workspaces for a substantial portion of the population, affecting 46% of companies in Brazil [5]. This transformation compromised the potential for indoor well-being in buildings, resulting in a notable decline in quality of life due to the added stress of social isolation [6,7].

Concerning the work environment, sound plays a crucial role, in affecting work performance and having detrimental effects on health. Noise contributes to increased stress levels and a heightened risk of developing diseases [8]. It ranks as the second most significant source of dissatisfaction in workspaces, following temperature control [9]. In the context of remote work settings, persistent or excessive noise within households can lead to a revised perception of the indoor acoustic environment, resulting in a significant increase in discomfort [10,11], particularly regarding noise from neighboring apartments and shared spaces [12]. These discomforts are further exacerbated when compounded by external noise from traffic, construction, and other neighborhood activities [13].

However, this new scenario of social isolation also provided an opportunity to examine the changes in the acoustic environment before and during the pandemic [14]. The soundscape approach involves the study of the acoustic environment as perceived, experienced, and understood by individuals in specific contexts [15]. This encompasses a wide range of sounds, including human and natural elements, and is analyzed across three key components: human interaction, acoustic environment, and perception [16,17].

Studies conducted in 2020 indicated that the reduction of anthropogenic noise in urban areas led to an increase in natural sounds from the external environment, contributing to a more pleasant indoor soundscape [18,19]. During the initial phase of the pandemic, people described the soundscape as more pleasant than before the lockdown, characterizing it by positive adjectives such as calm, pleasant, and peaceful [20]. This shift can be attributed to the preference for natural sounds over human and mechanical ones since natural sounds are associated with restorative environments and have the potential to enhance adaptive capabilities while reducing occupational stress [21,22].

In Brazil, social distancing measures were implemented in the latter half of March 2020 and gradually eased from mid-April 2020 [23]. The second phase of the pandemic in 2021 witnessed a resurgence of social isolation measures. The use of private vehicles surged as the primary mode of transportation for essential activities, while the utilization of public transport has decreased dramatically [24]. Studies conducted in Brazil in 2020, particularly in Rio de Janeiro (RJ – Brazil), revealed no substantial reduction in noise levels around major avenues [25]. In 2021, the emergence of coronavirus mutations in the city of Manaus (AM – Brazil) prompted a second wave of the pandemic and the imposition of a new lockdown [26]. Given the extended period of social isolation, it is conceivable that in the second phase, people’s well-being was notably influenced by factors associated with mental health and an enhanced awareness of indoor sounds [11,12].

This research aims to investigate the relationship between the soundscape and the workplace before and during the second phase of the pandemic in Brazil, amidst the backdrop of compulsory social isolation measures. To conduct this investigation, online surveys were administered to gather data on the work environment’s experiences before and during the pandemic. The discussion focuses on relations between the quality of the work environments and personal variables, predominant indoor and outdoor sound sources, type of activities, and changes in lifestyle due to the pandemic.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the research methodology employed for data collection and analysis; Section 3 presents the findings derived from the data analysis; Section 4 offers a comprehensive discussion of the results; and, finally, in Section 5, the conclusions drawn from this study are presented.

2 Methodology

The methodology employed in this study comprises two distinct stages: data collection through the administration of questionnaires, and data analysis employing a statistically appropriate approach for the dataset. For data collection, a questionnaire was meticulously designed using the Google Forms platform. This instrument was subsequently distributed remotely in the Portuguese language and targeted individuals residing in Brazil during the period between May and June 2021. Before the final version, a pilot study was conducted, resulting in necessary adjustments and improvements. This research has been duly approved by the Brazilian Research Ethics Committee, at Plataforma Brasil (CAAE: 50224021.4.0000.5346).

3 Results

This section presents the results obtained from the aforementioned data analysis.

3.1 Descriptive analysis

The survey had 253 participants. Out of the 253 respondents to the questionnaire, four were excluded either due to residing outside Brazil or not granting data usage authorization. In terms of gender distribution, 54.6% of respondents identified as women, while 45.4% identified as men. Regarding age categorization, given the relatively low response numbers, the options “up to 20” and “from 20 to 35” were combined, as well as “51 to 65” and “over 65.” Consequently, as shown in Figure 1, the Age variable was divided into three groups: “up to 35,” representing 76.3% of responses, “from 36 to 50,” accounting for 16.5% of responses, and “over 50,” comprising 7.2% of the total responses.

Figure 1

Questionnaire answers for (a) age, (b) gender, and (c) education.

Regarding education, the analysis consolidated options “High school” and “Technical degree” into a single category labeled “High School/Technical” (8.4%). “Undergraduate” represented 60.6% of respondents, “Master’s Degree” accounted for 24.5%, and “Doctorate Degree” represented 6.4% of respondents. In terms of professions, approximately 45% of respondents identified themselves as belonging to the fields of engineering or architecture, while 26% were affiliated with the education sector. Professions such as law, health, marketing, and information technology each represented fewer than 20 individuals. The study included participants from all regions of Brazil, encompassing 16 different states. Among these states, São Paulo had the highest number of contributions (33.3%), followed by Rio Grande do Sul (31.7%), situated in the southern region of the country, as indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Questionnaire answers for (a) state, (b) dwelling environment, (c) number of flatmates, (d) type of dwelling, and (e) changes address.

In terms of “Dwelling Environment,” the majority (79.9%) resided in purely residential areas, while 17.7% lived in mixed areas combining residential and commercial spaces. The “Industrial and Countryside” category had only six individuals, so it was excluded from the analyses involving this variable. Regarding the “Type of Dwelling,” 55.8% of individuals resided in apartments, while 44.2% lived in houses. Concerning the “Number of flatmates,” 17.3% lived alone, 30.5% shared their living space with one person, 21.3% with two individuals, and 30.9% cohabited with three or more people. Notably, almost one-third of the respondents reported changing their address during the pandemic.

Regarding employment, 14.3% of participants engaged in remote work before the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the most common types of activities reported were reading and writing (205), followed by visual activities (179), and speaking and listening activities (146), with motor activities (50) being the least frequent. After the pandemic, this order remained consistent, with individuals indicating increased engagement in reading and writing (219), visual activities (193), and speaking and listening activities (163), while participation in motor activities (35) declined during this period. Regarding the level of Focus needed for work, 13.2% indicated a very high necessity, while 48.5% specified a high level, 34.9% mentioned a medium level, and 3.2% cited a low level. Concerning the chosen Workspace, the bedroom was the most used (59.4%), followed by the office (19.6%) and the living room (18.1%). The kitchen option received only 2.8% of responses and was subsequently excluded from the analysis.

Based on the presented data, the study sample primarily comprises young individuals with a high level of education. It is worth noting, however, that in Brazil, only 17.4% of adults aged 25 and above have attained higher education, while 48.8% have completed high school [32]. Consequently, this study exhibits a bias towards individuals with better employment prospects and improved housing conditions. However, due to the study’s comprehensive coverage of all regions within the country, the sample may serve as a representative cross-section of the defined population, encompassing a range of employment and housing scenarios.

3.2 Comparison between before and during the pandemic

For the workplace quality variable, the Wilcoxon test indicates significant differences in responses before and during the pandemic, as indicated in Table 5. Notably, during the pandemic, fewer individuals rated the workplace as regular, positive, or very positive, while more individuals reported it as negative or very negative (Figure 3). The Wilcoxon test also indicates that individuals reported increased multitasking during the pandemic, although the skewness test indicates a positive asymmetry (0.69) in the data distribution. However, visual inspection (Figure 4) shows that the median of the responses is higher than before the pandemic, supporting the discussion of the presented results.

Table 5

Wilcoxon test for the variables before and during the pandemic

	Variable 1	Mean	Variable 2	Mean	p-Value	Skewness
Sum of activities scores	Before pandemic	2.29	During pandemic	2.40	0.014*	0.695
Quality of workplace	Before pandemic	2.34	During pandemic	1.90	5.82 × 10−7*	0.0335*
Sound perception during the pandemic	Indoor sounds	1.55	Outdoor sounds	1.09	1.555 × 10−11*	−0.078*

Mean score and p-values are given in the table. * Significant two-tailed (p-value < 0.05).

Figure 3

Quality of work environment before and during the pandemic.

Figure 4

Sum of scores for activities performed before and during the pandemic.

To investigate the factors underlying these changes, a Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between workplace quality during the pandemic and various variables. The results revealed a negative correlation between workplace quality and the type of activities carried out during the pandemic, particularly indicating that multitasking was associated with lower workplace quality. None of the other variables in Sections 1 and 3 of the questionnaires showed significant correlations.

Considering the key findings, the perception of indoor and outdoor sounds demonstrated significant correlations with workplace quality during the pandemic (Table 6). The Wilcoxon test underscored a statistically significant divergence in the way these sounds were perceived, with outdoor sounds garnering more negative evaluation compared to indoor sounds. When considering median responses, participants characterized their perception of indoor sounds as regular, whereas their median for the perception of outdoor sounds was negative (Figure 5). These findings collectively emphasize the pivotal role that sound perception, both indoor and outdoor, plays in shaping individuals’ assessments of their work environment during the pandemic.

Table 6

Significant Spearman correlation coefficient found for workplace quality during the pandemic

Variable 1	Variable 2	ρ Spearman	p-Value
Quality of workplace during the pandemic	Sum of activities scores	−0.15	0.02*
	Perception of outdoor sounds	0.38	3.55 × 10−10*
	Perception of indoor sounds	0.31	4.979 × 10−7*

*Significant two-tailed correlation (p-value < 0.05).

Figure 5

Perception of indoor and outdoor sounds during the pandemic.

3.3 Interference of sounds in activities during the pandemic

In the context of outdoor sound perception during the pandemic, it is notable that a substantial majority of respondents reported perceiving natural sounds (85%), vehicle traffic (80%), domestic animals (67%), and voices/music (66%). While natural sounds demonstrated a direct correlation with positive workplace quality responses, this association did not reach statistical significance (Table 7). All other outdoor sounds, when perceived, exhibited an inverse correlation with this variable, i.e., individuals who reported exposure to traffic sounds from vehicles, aircraft, machinery, and voices/music tended to provide more negative responses.

Table 7

Spearman correlation coefficient for the perception of sounds on activities and workplace quality during the pandemic

		Sound perception		Workplace quality during the pandemic
		ρ Spearman	p-Value	ρ Spearman	p-Value
Outdoor sounds	Vehicle traffic	−0.25	8.52 × 10−5*	−0.07	0.27
	Train passage	−0.12	0.07	−0.07	0.27
	Aircraft	−0.17	0.0081*	−0.18	0.0031*
	Natural sounds	0.04	0.54	0.006	0.92
	Domestic animals	−0.07	0.27	−0.11	0.08
	Machines/equipment	−0.20	0.0012*	−0.14	0.0306*
	Voices and music	−0.20	0.0015*	−0.13	0.0403*
Indoor Sounds	People voices	−0.21	6.79 × 10−4*	−0.16	1.11 × 10−2*
	People movement	−0.22	3.28 × 10−4*	−0.26	3.48 × 10−5*
	Pets	−0.17	0.0076*	−0.13	0.04*
	Radio/TV/Music	0.07	0.28	0.04	0.49
	Machines	−0.16	0.001*	−0.09	0.16

*Significant two-tailed correlation (p-value < 0.05).

Concerning perception of indoor sounds, individuals reported higher frequencies of TV and music (71%), voices (67%), people movement (59%), pets (53%), and machinery (53%). Notably, the perception of indoor sounds during the pandemic displayed significant inverse correlations with variables of people movement, voices, presence of pets, and machinery (Table 7). Individuals exposed to these indoor sounds tended to provide negative or very negative responses when queried about workplace quality during the pandemic. Given the nature of the variables involving human presence, the inverse correlation observed between the variable representing positive sound perception and variables related to people’s voices, movement of people, and domestic animals, a more comprehensive understanding of their impact on the workplace environment emerges upon closer examination.

The variable number of flatmates exhibited a significant correlation with the interference caused by outdoor and indoor sounds, as observed across all groups in the Kruskal–Wallis H-test (Table 8). However, the Spearman correlation analysis revealed distinct patterns: there was a positive correlation between the number of flatmates and perception of outdoor sounds (ρ = 0.14, p-value = 0.02), but an inverse correlation for indoor sounds (ρ = −0.13, p-value = 0.04). Individuals living alone reported more negative perceptions of outdoor sounds than those cohabitating with one or more people (Figure 6). Conversely, those who shared their living space with multiple flatmates tended to perceive indoor sounds more adversely compared to individuals who lived alone or with just one other person (Figure 7).

Table 8

Kruskal–Wallis H test among different groups concerning perception of indoor and outdoor sounds regarding the variables Number of Flatmates and Workplace

Variable 1: Number of Flatmates
Variable 2	Kruskal–Wallis H test									Spearman correlation
	Group 1 (Mean)		Group 2 (Mean)		Group 3 (Mean)		Group 4 (Mean)		p-value	ρ	p-Value
Perception of outdoor sounds	Zero	0.81	One	1.04	Two	1.21	≥Three	1.2	0.07	0.14	0.02*
Perception of indoor sounds	Zero	1.65	One	1.64	Two	1.43	≥Three	1.48	0.17	−0.13	0.04*

Variable 2	Kruskal–Wallis H test
	Group 1 (Mean)		Group 2 (Mean)		Group 3 (Mean)		p-Value
Perception of outdoor sounds	Living room	1.19	Office	1.24	Bedroom	1.01	0.52
Perception of indoor sounds	Living room	1.71	Office	1.80	Bedroom	1.41	0.01*

Group definition, mean score, and p-values are given in the table. *Significant two-tailed correlation (p-value < 0.05).

Figure 6

Perception of outdoor sounds in relation to the number of flatmates.

Figure 7

Perception of indoor sounds in relation to the number of flatmates.

The Kruskal–Wallis H-test indicated significant differences in the perception of indoor sounds on activities for the Workplace variable (Table 8). As can be seen in Figure 8, workers in the bedroom had a negative median response, while those in the living room had a regular median response. This result indicates that individuals working in a private workplace (bedroom) perceive the sounds more negatively than those working in a shared environment (living room).

Figure 8

Perception of indoor sounds in relation to the workplace.

The variable’s Type of dwelling and Dwelling environment exhibited a significant inverse correlation with the perception of outdoor sounds, with ρ = −0.15 (p-value = 0.0166) and ρ = −0.22 (p-value = 0.0006), respectively. The Mann–Whitney U test confirmed the statistically significant difference in medians, as can be seen in Table 9. These findings suggest that individuals living in mixed-use sites reported more frequent occurrences of very negative and negative responses compared to those residing in residential sites (Figure 9). Similarly, individuals living in apartments displayed a higher prevalence of negative responses compared to those living in houses (Figure 10).

Table 9

Mann–Whitney U test between two groups concerning personal and home characteristics regarding the variable Perception of outdoor sounds

		Group 1	Mean	Group2	Mean	p-Value
Perception of outdoor sounds	Dwelling environment	Residential	1.16	Mixed-use	0.82	0.0006*
	Type of dwelling	House	1.25	Apartment	0.96	0.02*
	Number of Flatmates	Zero	0.81	One or more	1.15	0.02*

Group definition, mean score, and p-values are given in the table. *Significant two-tailed correlation (p-value < 0.05).

Figure 9

Perception of outdoor sounds in relation to the type of dwelling.

Figure 10

Perception of outdoor sounds in relation to the Dwelling environment.

4 Discussion

The study revealed significant results related to the perception of the quality of the environment during the pandemic (Table 5). First, there was a deterioration in the perception of environmental quality during the pandemic in comparison to the previous period. In addition, those who performed multiple tasks during this period tended to have a negative perception of the quality of the work environment. However, when analyzing correlations with demographic variables, statistical tests showed no significance, except in the case of indoor and outdoor sound perceptions (Table 6). This suggests that the indoor and outdoor soundscape has played a role in the perception of the work environment quality during the pandemic, directly affecting workers’ experience.

Previous investigations into acoustic perception and environmental attributes have also revealed weak correlations. For instance, in a study conducted in open-plan offices [33], correlation coefficients of 0.341, 0.231, 0.256, 0.282, and 0.432 were reported for layout, air quality, thermal environment, lighting conditions, and the acoustic environment, respectively. When examining participants’ satisfaction with the acoustic environment, the most pronounced negative association emerged with conversation noise (0.448), followed by phone ringing noise (0.311).

Furthermore, a study conducted in London during the pandemic [12] also identified weak correlations in sound perception. Notably, these correlations included a negative relationship between noise sensitivity and perceived acoustic comfort (ρ = −0.31, p-value < 0.001) and between noise sensitivity and perceived psychological well-being (ρ = −0.25, p-value < 0.001), as well as a significant positive correlation between acoustic comfort and perceived psychological well-being (ρ = 0.28, p-value < 0.001). These findings collectively reinforce the outcomes derived from the present study, particularly considering the correlations documented in Tables 7–9, which focus on perceptions of the specified sounds.

In the current study, a notable trend emerged as participants consistently reported more negative interference from outdoor sounds in comparison to their indoor counterparts. Specifically, the perception of vehicle traffic, aircraft, machinery, and voices/music tended to evoke less favorable assessments regarding workplace quality and their disruptive influence on work-related activities. Interestingly, only natural sounds displayed a positive correlation with the quality of the work-from-home environment, although these correlations did not achieve statistical significance (p-value > 0.05).

This observation aligns with the findings of a study conducted in London [34]. This study documented a noticeable upswing in noise-related complaints during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a particular focus on issues related to neighborhood noise and construction activities conducted by neighbors. This escalation in complaints can be ascribed to the unpredictable nature of outdoor sounds, where diminished control over noise levels and uncertainty about its source can contribute to a degradation in acoustic perception and hinder work performance [27]. Additionally, the heightened prevalence of technology and the amplified presence of online sounds during the pandemic were linked to increased feelings of fatigue [35].

Conversely, research conducted in 2020 illuminated a shift in the perception of sound sources, primarily influenced by the enforcement of pandemic-related confinement measures. A study in the city of Belo Horizonte (MG – Brazil) [35] documented a reduction in traffic noise, a rise in natural sounds, and an increased awareness of domestic noises. As a result, previously overlooked quiet areas have gained newfound significance, emphasizing the importance of attentive listening practices and highlighting societal disparities. As the social distancing measures introduced in 2020 were gradually relaxed, mechanical sources reclaimed prominence over natural sounds. In contrast to certain other countries, an investigation spanning 2020–2021 conducted in Italy [36] implies that the perception of the soundscape remained relatively stable. In this context, the pandemic-related measures and circumstances had a positive impact on outdoor soundscapes by reducing the sources of outdoor anthropogenic noise. However, simultaneously, they exerted an adverse influence on indoor and immediate surrounding soundscapes.

During the initial phase of the pandemic in Brazil, research [23,24,25,26] indicates a discernible change in environmental noise levels, particularly in proximity to major thoroughfares, when compared to the pre-pandemic period. Notably, in São Paulo city, Michalski et al. [37] observed a noise reduction ranging from 3 to 7.4 dB, with the extent of reduction varying based on the road type. Likewise, Rio de Janeiro’s city center experienced a noise reduction ranging from 3 to 5 dB [25]. These findings, considering this study’s results (Table 8), help to shed light on the influence of the “Dwelling environment” and “Type of dwelling” variables. Individuals residing in mixed-use areas generally reported a less favorable perception of outdoor sounds compared to those living in exclusively residential areas. This disparity may be attributed to the heightened presence of human and technological sounds in mixed-use areas, potentially explaining the uptick in noise levels. Moreover, apartments, given their susceptibility to both direct and indirect sources of sound, tend to be more exposed to outdoor noise disturbances.

Indoor sounds have assumed greater importance in delineating the boundaries between private and public spaces, as observed by Vianna et al. [35], a reflection of the increased time people spend at home. Furthermore, in London, Torresin’s findings [11,12] underscore the profound impact of the indoor soundscape during lockdown on daily life, revealing a host of adverse implications for individuals. That resonates with the current study, where those engaged in multitasking reported a worsened perception of their working environment (Table 6). Furthermore, a 2020 study conducted by Ferreira et al. [38] in the city of São Luíz (MA – Brazil) brought to the forefront the stress-inducing effects of indoor sounds, particularly the repetitive and relevant sounds stemming from domestic activities and conversations. These revelations in Vianna, Torresin, and Ferreira’s work align with the correlations identified in Table 7, specifically about indoor sounds, such as voices and the movement of people, collectively reinforcing their significance in comprehending the dynamics of indoor soundscapes.

In this study, individuals residing with two or more people tend to perceive indoor sounds more unfavorably than those who live alone. Conversely, individuals living alone exhibit a more negative perception of outdoor sounds compared to their counterparts sharing living spaces. This divergence in perception may be attributed to the presence of a larger number of individuals in the same household, which tends to generate high indoor noise. When this noise is undesired, it can detrimentally impact work-related activities. These findings align with the insights of Andargie et al. [13], who also emphasized that noise originating from cohabitants within the same residence, whether roommates or family members, posed the primary challenge affecting both the quality of life and productivity during the 2020 lockdown. The authors suggest that the existing acoustic conditions in multifamily homes may not be conducive to accommodating numerous individuals working from home.

Regarding the workplace variable, individuals engaged in work within a private workspace, like the bedroom, typically convey a more negative perception of sounds when contrasted with those operating in shared environments, such as the living room. Multiple factors, as expounded upon in ISO 12913-1 [39], can shape the way auditory sensations are perceived, encompassing the anticipation that a private setting affords a more regulated acoustic environment. Furthermore, the variance in perception can also be ascribed to the dual-purpose nature of the bedroom, serving both as a place for repose and labor, thereby fostering increased sensitivity to indoor noise owing to extended exposure within the same surroundings.

5 Conclusion

This study investigated the impact of the soundscape on the perceived quality of the home-based work environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey was distributed to residents across Brazil, allowing for a comparative analysis of variables both before and during the pandemic while capturing their perceptions of the work environment. A total of 249 responses were analysed, representing diverse regions of Brazil. It is worth noting a bias toward younger individuals and those with higher levels of education among the respondents.

The study revealed that older individuals living in mixed-use areas and those cohabiting with more occupants were more likely to experience changes in their residential environment. These changes were driven by the shift to remote work, which brought about alterations in work activities, potentially increasing demands, and workloads. The statistical analysis showed that as the complexity of tasks increased, the perceived quality of the work environment concerning the soundscape tended to deteriorate. While these correlations may be considered weak, they underscore the discernible influence of both indoor and outdoor soundscapes on the overall quality of the work environment, aligning with previous research.

The impact of indoor and outdoor sounds on activities was correlated with the overall quality of the work environment. Notably, significant correlations emerged for specific indoor and outdoor sound sources, such as aircraft, machinery, voices/music, and the movement of people. These sound sources received poor or very poor ratings, particularly outdoor sounds. This trend can be attributed to unpredictable outdoor sounds, which diminish the sense of control over noise and create uncertainty about its origin, affecting acoustic perception and work performance. However, it is worth noting that only the perception of natural sounds displayed a positive correlation, although it did not reach statistical significance.

In summary, while natural sounds have the potential to positively influence soundscape perception, human and mechanical sounds have a more pronounced impact on the holistic evaluation of the working environment’s quality. The lower ratings for outdoor sounds, especially in residences located in mixed-use areas, highlight the significant shifts in soundscape perception both before and during the pandemic.