No abstract

No abstract

The similarities and differences are explored in both the aims and the methods between post-occupancy evaluations and field studies of thermal comfort in buildings. The interpretations of the field study results are explored, especially the ways the results differ from laboratory experiments. Particular attention is drawn to the dynamic nature of the interaction between buildings and their occupants. Answers to questions of the type used in post-occupancy evaluations are compared with results from field studies of thermal comfort, and the implications of these findings for the evaluation of buildings and the conduct of post-occupancy evaluation are explored. Field studies of thermal comfort have shown that the way in which occupants evaluate the indoor thermal environment is context-dependent and varies with time. In using occupants as part of the means of measuring buildings, post-occupancy evaluations should be understood as reflecting the changing nature of the relationship between people, the climate and buildings. Surveys are therefore measuring a moving target, and close comparisons based on such surveys need to take this in to account.L'auteur analyse les similitudes et les différences tant au niveau des objectifs que des méthodes entre les évaluations après emménagement et les études sur le terrain portant sur le confort thermique des bâ timents. Il examine les interprétations des résultats des études menées sur le terrain et en particulier la différence entre les résultats et les expériences en laboratoire. Il attire particulièrement l'attention sur la nature dynamique des interactions entre les bâ timents et leurs occupants. Les réponses aux questions du type utilisé dans les évaluations après emménagement sont comparées aux résultats des études menées sur le terrain concernant le confort thermique et l'auteur analyse les incidences de ces conclusions sur l'évaluation des bâ timents et sur la conduite de l'évaluation après emménagement. Des études menées sur le terrain et portant sur le confort thermique ont montré que la méthode utilisée par les occupants pour évaluer l'environnement thermique intérieur dépend du contexte et varie dans le temps. Lorsque l'on utilise les occupants comme partie des moyens permettant de mesurer les bâ timents, il faut interpréter les évaluations après emménagement en sachant qu'elles reflètent la nature changeante des relations entre les personnes, le climat et les bâ timents. Dans ces études, on mesure donc une cible évolutive et les comparaisons rapprochées qui s'appuient sur de telles études doivent en tenir compte. IntroductionThe post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of buildings is an increasingly important tool for the improvement of buildings and the evaluation of what makes energy-efficient and sustainable buildings. Over the last 20 years a range of POE methods have been

No abstract

Thermal comfort' is the term used to describe a satisfactory, stress-free thermal environment in buildings and, therefore, is a socially determined notion defined by norms and expectations. The idea of what is comfortable has certainly changed from one time, place and season to another (Chappells & Shove, 2005). For instance, it is estimated that the Houses of Parliament in London were found comfortable at 15°C by the original inhabitants (Schoenefeldt, 2016), who wore heavier clothing than is common today. Schoenefeldt (2016, p. 165) remarks that attendants reported difficulty getting MPs, who all sat in different areas, to agree on a set temperature. 'There was scarcely a meeting of the house at which there are not some members who would like the temperature to be at 55°F (13°C), and others at 70°F or 72°F' (21-22°C). Large variation exists in indoor thermal comfort according to different climates, times of year and culture. These responses and the actions and the lifestyles and beliefs they engendered ensured that the human race could survive in almost all the wide variety of conditions to be found across the planet. In 'Temperature and adaptive comfort in heated, cooled and free-running dwellings' (in this issue), Nicol finds that in their everyday life 90% of Japanese subjects are comfortable in their own homes with a temperature range between 18 and 28°C. A similar analysis among Pakistani office workers gives a range of 21-30°C (Nicol, Raja, Allaudin, & Jamy, 1999). At the extremes people can be comfortable in indoor temperatures as low as 10°C and as high as 35°C or more. Nonetheless, in any one given situation the comfort range will tend to be much narrower. The ability to find different temperatures acceptable depends on the access to opportunities to modify conditions such as the ability to change clothing or activity level which will enable individuals to be more comfortable (Cole, Robinson, Brown, & O'Shea, 2008). The most powerful of these intervention opportunities is the provision of