## 1 Introduction  
Soundscape studies strive to understand the perception of a sound environment, in context, including acoustic, (non-acoustic) environmental, and contextual, and personal factors. These factors combine together to form a person's soundscape in complex interacting ways [1]. In order to predict how people would perceive an acoustic environment, it is essential to identify the underlying acoustic and non-acoustic properties of soundscape. The soundscape community is undergoing a period of increased methodological standardization in order to better coordinate and communicate the findings of the field. This process has resulted in many operational tools designed to assess and understand how sound environments are perceived and apply this to shape modern noise control engineering approaches. Important topics which have been identified throughout this process are soundscape 'descriptors', 'indicators', and 'indices'. [PERSON] et al. [2] defined soundscape descriptors as \"measures of how people perceive the acoustic environment\"; soundscape indicators as \"measures used to predict the value of a soundscape descriptor\"; and soundscape indices can then be defined as \"single value scales derived from either descriptors or indicators that allow for comparison across soundscapes\" [3]. (Please find the link to the Soundscape Indices (SSID) ERC-funded website in the Supplementary Materials.) This conception has recently been formalized and expanded upon with the adoption of the recent ISO 12913 standard series [4; 5; 6]. ISO 12913 Part 1 sets out the definition and conception of Soundscape, defining it as the \"acoustic environment as perceived or experienced and/or understood by a person or people, in context\". Here, the soundscape is separated from the idea of an acoustic environment, which encompasses all of the sound which is experienced by the receiver, including any acoustically modifying effects of the environment. In contrast, the soundscape considers the acoustic environment, but also considers the impact of non-acoustic elements, such as the listener's context and the visual setting, and how these interact with the acoustic environment to influence the listener's perception. The ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 is the current reference document addressing data collection and reporting requirements in soundscape studies. In terms of methods, the ISO document covers two main approaches, namely: soundwalks combined with questionnaires (Methods A and B) and narrative interviews (Method C) [5], which relate to on-site and off-site data collection, accordingly. Part 3 of the ISO 12913 series builds on Part 2 and provides guidelines for analyzing data gathered using only those methods [6]. However, the range of possible methodological approaches to soundscape data collection is much broader and it includes, for instance, laboratory experiments [2; 7; 8], pseudo-randomized experience sampling [9], and even non-participatory studies [10]. The protocol described in this paper was designed having in mind the need for a relatively large soundscape dataset that could be used for design and modeling purposes, thus trying to expand the scope of soundwalks that typically deal with much smaller samples of participants [11]. For the sake of comparability and standardization with these methods, we chose to refer to the soundscape attributes reported in the ISO Part 2 (Method A). Several studies prior to the formalization of the ISO standards on soundscape demonstrated the general, but inadequate, relationship between traditional acoustic metrics, such as \(L_{Aeq}\), with the subjective evaluation of the soundscape [1; 12; 13; 14; 15]. These have typically aimed to address the existing gap between traditional environmental acoustics metrics and the experience of the sound environment. [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2005) showed that, when the sound level is 'lower than a certain value, say 70 dBA', there is no longer a significant change in the evaluation of acoustic comfort as the sound level changes.