Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Field studies on human thermal comfort d An overview

Asit Kumar Mishra*, Maddali Ramgopal
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an exhaustive overview of the field studies carried out in the past few decades on
Received 14 December 2012 human thermal comfort. To get a better grasp of patterns in observed data and to facilitate comparison
Received in revised form across investigations, the thermal comfort field studies are grouped using the KöppeneGeiger climatic
26 February 2013
classification of their locations. Effects of relevant environmental, physiological, and other aspects that
Accepted 27 February 2013
can have an effect on thermal comfort are reviewed and discussed. Field studies across the board show
that people have considerable capacity to adapt to their surroundings provided they have sufficient
Keywords:
adaptive opportunities. This observation holds good for both air-conditioned as well as free running
Thermal comfort
Field study
buildings. However, studies show that conditioned spaces have narrower comfort zones compared to
Adaptive thermal comfort free running buildings. Across climatic zones, most popular means of adaptation are related to the
Adaptive opportunities modification of air movement and clothing. The ease, economy, and effectiveness (the 3 ‘E’s) of adaptive
Climatic zones opportunities play a major role in occupants’ adaptation to the surroundings. Studies show that in-
dividuals are likely to perceive the same thermal environment differently and environments lacking
adaptive avenues normally receive poor comfort ratings. Studies also indicate that for adaptive comfort
equations, the running mean temperature may be a better outdoor index compared to the monthly mean
temperature.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With the introduction of sections concerning naturally condi-
tioned spaces into standards like ASHRAE 55-2004, ISO 7730, and
EN15251, the idea of adaptive comfort has graduated into the main
stream of comfort design. Though certain conflicts persist on
the definition of a naturally conditioned space as given by these
standards, designers now have clear and recognized guidelines
regarding the acceptability and minimal comfort requirements in
these buildings.
At their heart, adaptive models rely on the ability of occupants
to adapt to changes in their thermal environment in such a manner
as to restore their comfort [1]. These adaptive abilities act at three
different levels: physiological, behavioural, and psychological.
Since shaping of disposition of an individual at all these three
levels is heavily influenced by the weather s/he is exposed to, it is a
logical conjecture that adaptive models from similar climatic zones
would have more similarities than differences. This idea has been
used by multiple authors, with reasonable success, to validate their
field study results against comfort surveys done in similar climates
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: asit.mishra@mech.iitkgp.ernet.in, writeto.asit@gmail.com
(A.K. Mishra), ramg@mech.iitkgp.ernet.in (M. Ramgopal).
[2e13]. Over the past couple of decades there has been a
remarkable increase in the number of thermal comfort field
studies. These studies have added many fold to the body of work
existent at the turn of the century. The current work tries to group
a number of such field studies on basis of the climatic zones they
were conducted in and then examines their results for any un-
derlying trends.
1.1. KöppeneGeiger climate classification
The KöppeneGeiger system is one of the most used climate
classification systems with widespread application in diverse fields
ranging from climate research to biology and education. Kottek
et al. [14] have published an updated version of the Köppen clas-
sification map and we have used their work as basis for classifying
the comfort surveys into different climatic zones. Apart form
climate of a place, what affects the adaptive patterns of a popula-
tion is the culture. But as Humphreys and Nicol observe, climate
and culture are interlinked [1].
1.2. The climate types
KöppeneGeiger system divides climates into five major types
(each type having several subtypes):

0360-1323/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.02.015
 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
- Tropical Moist Climates (A)
- Dry Climates (B)
- Moist Subtropical Mid-Latitude Climates (C)
- Moist Continental Mid-latitude Climates (D)
- Polar Climates (E)
To the best of our knowledge, there do not exist any thermal
comfort surveys from Type E climates. The closest a survey came to
be done in the “Polar Climate” was the one done in a district of
Nepal, along with four other districts having milder climates [15].
This is not a major hindrance considering the harsh and thinly
populated nature of E zones. Several surveys have been conducted
across most of the subtypes of the other four major climate types.
Holmes and Hacker did an analysis of building comfort and
performance of HVAC set ups for the near future using different
scenarios of climate change [16]. Rubel and Kottek used similar
scenarios for global climatic changes to predict shifts in the Köppen
climatic regions [17]. As climate patterns do change, adaptive
comfort designs for particular regions can be suitably modified for
the future using Rubel and Kottek’s predictions as a basis.
2. Thermal comfort surveys from the different climate zones
2.1. Tropical moist climates
Prominent surveys in this type of climatic zones come from
Australia [18,19], Bangladesh [20], Brazil [21,22], Cuba [23,24], India
[25,26] (in addition to the results from the study done in Hyderabad
[27e32]), Indonesia [33,34], Nigeria [35], Malaysia [36,37],
Singapore [4,10,38,39], Thailand [40e43], and the USA [44]. Surveys
have been done across residences, offices, railway stations, and
classrooms. Amongst these studies are those which deal exclusively
with mechanically conditioned (MC) buildings [42] as well as those
which have taken mixed samples of MC and free running (FR)
buildings [33,38,41,44].
Apart form the surveys in Havana [23,24] and Chennai Central
Railway Station [26], the other surveys are of reasonably long
duration and across different seasons. Both these surveys were
done over two weeks during summer. But we agree with Tablada et
al. [23] that their results are remarkably similar to those from
others done in Type A climatic zone and hence, quite useful.
The indoor air temperatures measured in the Chennai survey vary
from 31 to 40
C (87.8e104
F). The transient nature of subjects’ stay
and the elevated range of temperatures experienced by them result in
an atypically high neutral temperature of 31.93
C (89.5
F). This
observation of an unusually high neutral temperature in unusually
hot surroundings is actually in line with adaptive comfort
hypothesis. In the same study, the authors also obtain a very narrow
comfort zone (1.61
C/2.9
F for the range of 1 on the ASHRAE
seven point scale). The authors have suggested that this could be
due to the dearth of adaptive opportunities in waiting lounges. In
addition, we suspect, the narrow nature of the comfort zone could
be a testament to the highly humid nature of Chennai’s climate.
In terms of operative temperature, the range of neutral tem-
peratures observed for FR buildings in Type A zones are between 26
and 29.5
C (78.8e85.1
F). The comfort zones for FR buildings from
different surveys lie between 22 and 32.5
C (71.6e90.5
F).
Preferred temperature of these studies lies between 24 and 26
C
(75.2e78.8
F) and is always lower than the neutral temperature.
Studies that have considered MC buildings in these zones give
neutral temperatures between 24 and 27
C (75.2e80.6
F) and
comfort zones within 22e28
C (71.6e82.4
F). The MC buildings
also show preferred temperatures lower than their neutral
temperatures [19,44]. The neutral temperature reported for MC
classrooms by Kwok is aberrant in being higher than the neutral
95
temperature of FR buildings in the same survey [44]. But as the
author states, this value of 28
C (82.4
F) is determined at a low
confidence level due to clustered nature of the data.
2.2. Dry climates
There do not exist a large number of comfort field surveys in
Type B climatic zones. The ones we consider here are from Australia
[45], Egypt [46], Kuwait [47], Libya [48e50], and Tunisia [51]. In
addition, some of the cities considered by Nicol et al. [52], during
their studies in Pakistan, also have Type B climates. These surveys
have been done mostly in work places and some surveys sample
both homes and offices.
Free running buildings in these types of climates can have
comfort zones spread from rather low to rather high temperatures.
While the data from Pakistan gives a comfort zone between 21 and
31
C (69.8e87.8
F) (globe temperature) for minimal reports of
discomfort, the surveys from Libya and Tunisia [50,51] concur on a
comfort zone between 16 and 26.5
C (60.8 e79.7
F). The last result
is not surprising since Libya and Tunisia are neighbouring countries
and share not just similar climates but also a similarity of culture.
The study done by Cena and de Dear in Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Australia
[45], was done in MC offices. They obtained a comfort zone between
22 and 25
C (71.6e77
F) ET* (effective temperature) with a neutral
temperature (in terms of operative temperature) of 20.4
C (68.7
F)
during winter and 23.3
C (73.9
F) during summer. Majority of
subjects in this study were used to being in MC environments not
just in their offices, but also at home and inside their vehicles. This
acclimatization to an artificial climate shows in their choice of
comfort votes. What is interesting however is that the neutral
temperature from the year long study done in five different cities of
Tunisia [51], in FR buildings, came up in between the summer and
winter neutral temperatures from the Australian study. The neutral
temperature for the study done in Cairo [46] was slightly higher at
24.5
C (76.1
F) but the 80% comfort zone in this study (between
19.7 and 29.3
C/67.5 and 84.7
F) was similar to that of the Pakistan
study. The study done in Kuwait was exclusively in MC buildings but
gave the highest neutral temperature amongst this group of studies
at 25.2
C (77.4
F). The comfort zone found in Kuwait was similar to
the Australian study.
The study done in Ghadames, Libya [48], shows some inter-
esting results. The sample buildings in this study included both MC
and FR buildings. As part of government initiative towards building
the new town of Ghadames, inhabitants of the MC buildings had
been moved to such buildings a few years before the survey was
conducted. The survey was conducted during the summer season
alone. With conditioning, in the new buildings, residents were
neutral between 25 and 31
C (77 and 87.8
F) globe temperature
and without conditioning, thermal dissatisfaction was expressed
for globe temperatures exceeding 32
C (89.6
F). In FR buildings
the comfort range was between 30.8 and 32.5
C (87.4e90.5
F) and
the neutral temperature was 31.6
C (88.9
F). These high values of
comfort temperatures that were recorded in this particular study
can be explained by the fact that the survey was during summer
season and the residents of MC buildings were not living in
centrally conditioned spaces. Rather, they were using window or
split units sparingly to avoid too high utility bills. These
inhabitants had still retained a high degree of acclimatization to
their external environment.
2.3. Moist subtropical mid-latitude climates
Numerous surveys have been done in these climates with a bulk
of them coming from the humid subtropical region of China
[2,7,8,11,13,53e69]. Studies have also been done across Nepal [15],
96 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106

Taiwan [5,6,70e72], and Portugal [73,74], and in France [75,76],
Germany [77], South Korea [78], India [79], Italy [80e83], Iran [84],
Japan [85e87] Pakistan [88], the UK [89e91], and the USA [92].
Both MC and FR buildings of different types d residences, work
places, classrooms, dormitories, old age homes, library reading
rooms d have been sampled in these surveys. Mid-latitude cli-
mates include a wide variety of subtypes within the broad classi-
fication. The humid subtropical subtype can have both cold winters
and hot summers while the Mediterranean and oceanic subtypes
are comparatively milder. Experiencing such a wide range of cli-
mates gives the inhabitants of Type C zones an equivalently broad
range of adaptability.
Neutral temperatures obtained in FR buildings from these cli-
mates can vary from 11.5
C (52.7
F) [55], for studies done exclu-
sively in the winter, to 28.6
C (83.5
F) [57], for studies done
exclusively during summer. Both of these studies were done in
humid subtropical locations of China. For the mid-seasons, a study
done across different building types of Portugal [73] and a study
done in classrooms at Changsha [13] give close values of neutral
temperatures at 21.9
C (71.4
F) and 21.5
C (70.7
F) respectively.
Studies done in conditioned offices in Hong Kong give neutral
temperature of 23.7
C (74.7
F) for summer and 21.2
C (70.2
F) for
winter [62]. Studies done in conditioned spaces in northern Italy
[83] and San Francisco [92] report values of neutral temperature in
between the Hong Kong values: 22.9
C (73.2
F) for northern Italy,
22
C (71.6
F) for winter in San Francisco and 22.6
C (72.7
F) for
summer in San Francisco. Comfort temperature ranges for FR
buildings can be between 14 and 32
C (57.2e89.6
F) for the
different subtypes and over summer and winter. Conditioned
buildings have narrower ranges for comfort that lie within 19.5e
25
C (67.1e77
F). Preferred temperatures from the surveys have
a much smaller spread than the neutral temperatures: 21.4e27.9
C
(70.5e82.2
F).
An observation unique to this climate type is that the preferred
temperature was more than the neutral temperature in two studies
done in classrooms and dormitories in Chongqing [54,56]. This is
most likely a reflection on the rather extreme range of tempera-
tures that Chongqing experiences d monthly averages spanning
from 0 to 30
C (32e86
F) d and a high level of acclimatization of
the residents to hot weather [56]. It would not be out of place here
to note that Chongqing is often referred to as one of the ‘three
furnaces of China’.
2.5. Change of neutral temperature over time
What could provide valuable insight into the adaptive
behaviour and acclimatization of people is how neutral temper-
ature of certain populations change over the years. There are at
least three places for which we have studies done about a decade
apart. Table 1 summarizes the results of interest from these three
cases.
With just three instances it would not be ideal to generalize, but
the indication is that neutral temperatures established by field
studies do not go through big changes over reasonably long periods
of time.
2.6. Adaptive comfort equations
Apart from the adaptive comfort equations (ACEs) given in
standards like ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 or EN15251, several field
surveys have come up with their own adaptive equations too. Such
equations are available from surveys done in Types B, C, and D
climates. In Appendix A (Table A.1), we provide some of these
equations, along with the equations from the standards and certain
meta studies of global data, to act as a quick reference for the
reader.
2.7. A summary of the field survey buildings
In Table 2 we summarize the field surveys referred for this
overview. We classify the studies done in different climatic zones
on the basis of building type and the type of indoor conditioning
used in those buildings. Surveys that involved both MC and FR
buildings are put under a separate category. All offices, waiting
areas, lounges, and other institutional buildings are grouped under
Offices, residences and dormitories are grouped under Residences,
while classes, reading rooms, libraries, and other educational
rooms are grouped under Classrooms. Any studies that involved
more than one building type have been cited under multiple cat-
egories. However, we must note here that, not all the studies that
involved multiple building types have separated their analysis for
the different building types.
3. Discussions

2.4. Moist continental mid-latitude climates At the outset of this section, we mention the surveys done with
young children as subjects [89,97]. Children have different levels of
Like the dry climatic zones, only few surveys have been done in thermal sensation, different metabolic rates, different clothing re-
Type D climates. The ones being considered here are from Canada strictions, and different sensitivities to temperature changes. Levels
[93], China [9,94e96], and South Korea [12]. The Seoul and Harbin of response between children also has a lot of variance and class-
studies were done in buildings that were FR type during the room activities are more diverse than adult activities over a typical
summer but had heating for winter months. The other two studies day [89]. We have not come across many surveys done with young
were in buildings with operational heating or cooling systems d as children as subjects and much further work is needed in the field.
per the season. So, we will avoid further discussions of surveys done with young
These surveys give summer neutral temperatures between subjects.
23.5 and 28
C (74.3e82.4
F) and summer comfort zones between
21.5 and 31
C (70.7e87.8
F). Winter neutral temperatures lie
Table 1
between 20 and 25
C (68e77
F) and winter comfort zones be- Changes in neutral temperature with time.
tween 16.5 and 26.5
C (61.7e79.7
F). The broader ranges for
winter are because the different winter time studies were done Location Year of survey Building type Ventilation Neutral
type temperature
both with and without heating enabled. Preferred temperatures,
Bangkok 1988 [40] Offices FR 28.7
C (83.7
F) ET*
where they have been calculated, lie between 22 and 23
C (71.6e
2002e03 [43] Offices and FR 28.0
C (82.4
F)
73.4
F). residences
When the survey during winter time, with heating active, was Singapore 1986e87 [38] Residences FR 28.5

C (83.3

F)
repeated in Harbin after a gap of almost 10 years, a 1.1
C (2
F) 2000e01 [4] Residences FR 28.6

C (83.5

F)



lower neutral temperature was registered. The authors ascribe this Harbin 2000e01 [95] Residences MC 21.5 C (70.7 F)



2009e10 [96] Residences MC 20.4 C (68.7 F)
to acclimatization of the occupants [96].
 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106 97

Table 2 only for conditioned spaces. In many of the field surveys we discuss,
Summary of buildings from different climatic zones. we find this mismatch for surveys done in solely FR buildings
Climatic Type of Type of References [4,15,21,23,31,39,54,56], solely MC buildings [66,93], and in FR and
zone building conditioning MC buildings together [2,5,44,57,71,73,92]. Only in two of the in-
Type A Offices MC [19,22,38,42] stances was the annual average neutral temperature smaller than
FR [26,36] the preferred temperature [54,56]. In one case, the preferred tem-
FR and MC [33,37,40,41,43]
perature found was never actually recorded over the survey period
Residences FR [4,10,20,23e25,
27e32,34,35,38] [23]. This might have been simply due to the short duration of that
FR and MC [18,43] particular survey. In FR buildings, occupants often take several
Classrooms FR [21,22,35,39] adaptive measures to improve their comfort. The preference for
FR and MC [36,43,44] such a person might be an idealized situation where s/he does not
Type B Offices MC [45]
FR [50,51]
have to undertake any adaptive action and yet feels comfortable. So,
FR and MC [52] as viewed by people, neutral and preferred conditions may not
Residences MC [47] match.
FR [50,51] We further observe that subjects preferred to be cooler during
FR and MC [48,49,52]
warm periods/in warm-humid climates [4e6,23,31,34,41,44,54,56,
Classrooms FR and MC [46]
Type C Offices MC [62,63,66,69,71,83,85,86] 64,70,75,78,91e93], and to be warmer during cooler periods/in
FR [7,53,65,75e77,79,84,88] cold climates [54,56,64,81,82,97]. Even when we examine the pref-
FR and MC [2,73,74,80,90e92] erence of the same population during different seasons, a similar
Residences MC [68] pattern turns up [65,73,74,76,80]. This trend has been best expressed
FR [11,15,54,55,58,59,64,65,67,84]
FR and MC [2,8,57,69e71,73,74]
by Humphreys and Hancock as: “People prefer sensations on the
Classrooms MC [68,81] warm side of neutral if it is cool outdoors and warm indoors, while
FR [6,13,56,59,65,72,78,82,89] they prefer sensations cooler than neutral if it is warm outdoors and
FR and MC [5,73,74,80,87] cool indoors” [100].
Climate MC [60,61]
chamber
Type D Offices MC [12,93,94] 3.2. Changes to the traditional adaptive model
Residences MC [9]
FR [95] 3.2.1. Running mean temperature
FR and MC [96] Traditionally, adaptive comfort models have related neutral
Classrooms MC [94]
temperature of occupants with a monthly mean outdoor tem-
perature. The term monthly mean leaves a lot open to interpre-
tation: mean of which month, the current or the preceding; is it a
3.1. Comfort in free running buildings historic mean or a mean of the days during which the survey was
taken; if a historic mean, how many years of data has been taken
There are multiple examples of people feeling comfortable un- in its calculation? This situation is quite commonly faced in trying
der free running conditions while environmental parameters were to understand end results from many of the surveys. Use of
far removed from traditional comfort zones. We cite a few such running mean temperature (RMT) puts an end to such predica-
examples from different climatic zones: Type A [4,20,21,35e37,44], ment and provides a more fluid and sensitive indicator of occu-
Type B [48,50,52], Type C [6,13,15,55,57,58,70,78,84], and Type D pant’s thermal history [1]. Successful use of running means in
[9,96]. These examples may also be classified according to the estimation of clothing changes with temperature [102], lead to an
building types where the surveys were done as: residential build- exponentially weighted running daily mean expression being
ings [4,9,15,20,35,48,50,52,55,57,58,70,84,96], work places and used for RMT [1,103]. The form of RMT gives more recent daily
institutional buildings [36,37,50,52,84], and educational buildings mean temperatures a dominant role. This has been compared
[6,13,21,35,36,44,78]. with a radioactive decay series and the RMT expression used with
However, amongst the numerous surveys done, a few do turn up EN15251 has a “half life” of about half-week [104]. Similarly,
where people have difficulty accepting the naturally ventilated ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 now requires the use of prevailing
environment, particularly during the hot season [22,23,31,34, mean outdoor air temperature (PMOAT) in place of the mean
46,65,82]. Of these cases, there were also studies where more monthly outdoor air temperature [105]. The calculation for
than 20% of occupants have voted in zone of discomfort [22,34, obtaining PMOAT is essentially similar to calculating RMT, though
46,82] despite the thermal environment being within the ASH- ASHRAE gives more flexibility in the number of days of historical
RAE 55-2004 recommended 80% comfort limits for naturally data used and the decay rate used. The ASHRAE standard also
conditioned buildings [98]. There was even a case where a great allows for the use of monthly mean temperatures if the required
number of occupants voted to be uncomfortable even though PMV weather data is unavailable.
calculations suggested otherwise [82]. In most of these cases, the We feel that use of RMT is able to remedy certain lacunae of
recorded air velocities were low. Also, in at least two of these sur- monthly mean temperature quite ably. A month is a patently hu-
veys, the occupants had reduced flexibility with clothing adjust- man construct and seasonal variations need not follow precise
ments [22,46]. monthly intervals. Secondly, using monthly means with adaptive
equations creates a set of rather discontinuous set point tempera-
3.1.1. Neutral vs preferred temperatures tures that change abruptly at the end of a month [106]. Lastly, the
Subjects often do not interpret the neutral point on a scale in the historic monthly mean temperature of a location does not reflect
same manner as the surveyors might and if at all neutral is what a the thermal history of a person who has recently immigrated. For
person wants to be is also debated [99,100]. de Dear and Brager buildings where control algorithms have access to recent weather
observed a difference between a building’s neutral and preferred data, RMT does a much better job of assessing thermal history of
temperature in their analysis of field survey data from all over the occupants. That aside, the concept of using continuous weather
world [101]. However, they found this difference to be significant data in RMT calculation is more in line with the idea of adaptability
98 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
of occupants. Lately, authors are beginning to prefer use of RMT in
their results and expressions [12,50,51,73,80,82].
3.2.2. Extended PMV
The PMV model, by accounting for changes of clothing and
metabolic rates, accounts for certain behavioural adaptations and
thus can be considered at least partially adaptive [101]. Fanger and
Toftum introduced an extended model of PMV (ePMV) to take into
account expectations of people based on local climate and popu-
larity of mechanical conditioning [107]. In some cases, applying the
ePMV model gives quite good match [7,59] and in others, the model
manages to do only just better than PMV [25,39]. The determina-
tion and rationality of the expectancy factor used with ePMV
models has been surrounded by controversy since it was proposed.
So the ePMV model has failed to find any widespread use. We
include it here primarily for its historical significance as it marks
the turning point when rational models started trying to emulate
adaptive comfort philosophies.
3.3. Age, gender, and seasonal differences
3.3.1. Age differences
From a physiological point of view, all three major cold defences
d shivering, vasoconstriction, and thermal perception of cold d get
compromised with ageing [108,109]. This would imply that older
subjects (>60 years of age) would either like to keep warmer or will
rate warmer environments more favourably. Some of the field
studies have the elderly feeling cooler/preferring a higher ambient
temperature [7,29,69]. Two field studies also report differences in
neutral temperature found for different age groups though their
results were not conclusive [33,43]. The elderly do face greater rates
of mortality from cold exposure [110] and this has also been noted in
one of the surveys [15] though the authors could not give exact
statistics due to lack of official death records. We must note here that
the differences in thermoregulation in the elderly might be more due
to the morphological differences, differences in fitness levels, and
debilitating effects that come along with ageing than just ageing per
say [110,111].
3.3.2. Gender differences
Studies that have analysed data for the two genders separately,
invariably come up with different voting patterns, percentage of
dissatisfaction, and comfort zone width for them [5,19,25,29,33,42,
60,61,67,73,80,83,85,93,95]. Clothing ensembles of men and
women often have different clo values, with women showing more
inter and intra seasonal variations. This is born out from studies in
laboratory conditions [112,113] as well as in the field [5,27,45,80,
83,92,95]. In their meta analysis of field survey responses, Schia-
von and Lee have also noted a statistically significant difference
between the clothing insulation value of the two genders though
they consider the difference to be negligible from “an engineering
point of view” [114].
Women have several morphological differences compared to
men, including higher surface area to volume ratios for body seg-
ments, a smaller average body size, lesser muscle mass, and a
higher surface area to mass ratio [110,115]. Gender related differ-
ences in body morphology affect the heat balance and also cause
differences in thermoregulation and thermal perception. Differ-
ences between the two genders manifested themselves in several
forms across the works we have reviewed. Most common mani-
festations were differences in neutral temperature [25,29,33,45,
60,61,80,85,92,95] (with most cases showing that women
preferred to be warmer), more dissatisfaction amongst female
subjects [5,19,45,93], differences in clothing insulation and patterns
of variation of clothing [45,93,92,95], and greater sensitivity of
women to temperature variations [5,60,67,95]. There were also
examples of female subjects having a narrower comfort zone [5,80]
and women adapting more effectively or more frequently to their
environment [29,73].
3.3.3. Seasonal differences
Surveys that are conducted across the whole year or over part of
summer and winter seasons, give different thermal sensations for
the two seasons [8,12,15,19,25,34,43,45,52,62,65,72,76,86,88,93]. In
some of the cases, the difference is small enough to be explained by
seasonal clothing variations while in quite a number of cases,
clothing differences alone are not enough to explain the change
[8,12,15,43,52,72,88]. These findings suggest that people from
different climatic zones have not inconsiderable capability for
adapting to seasonal changes of weather.
An analogous trend is seen for neutral temperature variation
over a day. Two studies from two different climates report a higher
neutral temperature for occupants during the later half of the day,
when the outdoors is also warmer [33,77]. Circadian rhythm of
human core temperature peaks during the afternoon [116] and part
of the reason for a higher neutral temperature could be this vari-
ation in body set point temperature [117]. What needs further
investigation is if the entire difference in neutral temperature
found by these authors is ascribable to the circadian rhythm or if
part of the variation is also due to our thermal history of expecting
higher temperatures during the later half of a day.
The observations made in this section could benefit from further
investigations. A first step could be to establish conclusively that
these phenomena exist. Following that, a better understanding of
why they occur could help design more occupant responsive con-
ditioning systems.
3.4. Effects of air movement and humidity
In his work on adaptive comfort in tropical regions, Nicol de-
scribes that while humidity has an effect on the comfort temper-
ature, this effect is small and difficult to consider [118]. For air
movement though, he proposes that in hot climates, there can be
an allowance on the comfort temperature depending on the ve-
locity of air movement that can be provided to the occupants. This
kind of allowance would not work for cold climates due to risk of an
uncomfortable draft. The allowance proposed by Nicol is to raise
the comfort temperature by:
50
DTð
C Þ ¼ 7  (1)
4 þ 10Va0:5
over and above the value predicted by ACEs. Here Va is the air velocity
and equation (1) is applicable when Va keeps consistently above
0.1 m/s (19.7 fpm). As a simplification, Nicol also proposed that if fans
are available, one may add 2
C (3.6
F) to the neutral temperature
values obtained from ACEs [118]. This correction factor given by
equation (1) is also included in EN15251. Similar to EN15251, now the
ASHRAE Standard 55 also allows for elevation of upper comfort
temperature limits in naturally conditioned spaces when air speeds
are in excess of 0.3 m/s (59 fpm) and operative temperature in the
occupied zone is more than 25
C (77
F) [105]. The elevations
allowed in comfort temperature limits are 1.2
C (2.2
F), 1.8
C
(3.2
F), and 2.2
C (4.0
F) for air speeds of 0.6 m/s (118 fpm), 0.9 m/s
(177 fpm), and 1.2 m/s (236 fpm) respectively. These values are based
on equal SET (Standard Effective Temperature) values.
Studies done in different climates show subjects expressing a
desire for greater air movement and width of comfort zones
increasing with aid of air movement [2,10,19e21,26,27,45,54,56,60,
61,65,75,76]. Zhang et al. have also observed from their analysis of
 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
the responses in Centre for the Built Environment’s (CBE) Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEQ) survey that office workers complain
more often about “too little” of air movement than about “too
much” of air movement [119]. What they also point out is the de-
mand for more air movement, amongst occupants voting warm
thermal sensations, is more widespread than the demand for less
air movement, amongst occupants voting a cool sensation.
At least one study done in university classroom/drawing rooms
shows that student activities are not disturbed at wind speed levels
of 1 m/s (197 fpm) [21]. Additionally, Zhang et al.’s study suggests
that more people view air movement as a positive influence in their
work environment than as a disturbance [119]. Some studies done in
MC offices have the respondents wanting more air movement even if
their voted thermal sensation is in the slightly cool region [45,54]. On
the other hand, the study done in Harbin during summer time [9]
has the occupants’ peak preference air velocity at 0.4 m/s
(78.7 fpm). As suggested by the authors, this is most likely due to low
use of fans and air-conditioners amongst Harbin’s population. These
occupants are satisfied with what little air velocity they can get from
natural ventilation and have probably adapted to such velocities.
In a dry environment, enhanced air movement is not required
for sweat evaporation. So, in a hot and dry environment, high air
velocities can be counter productive by increasing heat gain of the
body [31]. In such situations, occupants would adaptively close
windows or turn off ceiling fans.
In high humidity locations, greater air movement not only aids
convective heat transfer from skin, it also increases evaporation of
sweat. This could be the reason why in certain situations and lo-
cations (especially humid places like Karachi and Chennai), adding
just the air velocity to correlations improves predictability by a
reasonable amount [25,52,60].
So, if the surroundings are warm and humid, higher air veloc-
ities can be very effective, and one of the sole ways for enhancing
heat loss from human body. But, as Chow et al. [60] reason, more air
movement can cause an inherent pleasant sensation of freshness in
addition to thermal comfort. Occupants appreciate air movement
even when it is not necessary for cooling action [119]. This could be
crucial in conditioned spaces that do not have adequate ventilation
measures in place. ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 has also raised the
upper limit of air speed to 0.8 m/s (160 fpm) for operative tem-
peratures above 25.5
C (77.9
F) in all types of buildings [21,105].
Considering this enhanced air speed is not conditional on avail-
ability of local control to occupants, it would seem that greater air
velocities are here to stay.
Givoni et al. have done a meta analysis of data taken from hot
and humid regions and concluded that humidity has minimal effect
on thermal sensation of ‘sedentary and near-sedentary occupants’
[120]. Adding humidity in correlations between thermal sensation
and indoor temperature changes their predictive power very little
[5,25,31,42,52,60,61]. As per EN15251, in the European context,
humidity has a negligible effect on both thermal sensation and air
quality perception for moderately active occupants [104].
People in locations that experience highly humid conditions on a
regular basis are better acclimatized to such humidity levels
[9,13,20,29,42,54,56,58,67,72]. The study done in Dhaka found oc-
cupants feeling comfortable at a mind boggling 95% relative humidity
while the mercury soared close to 30
C (86
F) [20]. One of the ex-
planations as to why humidity does not affect the thermal sensation
of people could be acclimatization [120]. But, it has also been
observed that in conditions of high humidity, comfort temperatures
decrease and comfort zones become narrower [20,31,35,67]. This
would imply that in humid climates, people get uncomfortable with
smaller variations in temperature [118]. An ideal adjustment would
be to offset the effect of humidity by designing indoors with slightly
cooler temperatures even for acclimatized populations.
99
At the other end, in a few surveys it has been seen that low
humidity and warm environments together can cause symptoms
like nose bleeds, eye/throat irritations, sore throat, and dry mouth
[31,85,96]. Such situations lead subjects to give their thermal en-
vironments low ratings even though the root cause of their
discomfort is not a thermal sensation. This also shows that subjects
can be temperamental and are not always objective in estimating
their thermal sensation.
3.5. Nature of the surveys
For recommendations on survey methodologies, one may con-
sult ASHRAE Standard 55 [98,121] and the Performance Measure-
ment Protocols for Commercial Buildings (PMPCB) also published
by ASHRAE [122]. Parts of the PMPCB that deal with “IEQ Thermal
Comfort” discuss in great details about how to take the necessary
environmental measurements, necessary instrumentation and
their precision, and contents of subjective questionnaire. Though
the PMPCB is intended for use in surveys of occupied commercial
buildings, there is no reason as to why its advisories and guidelines
may not be followed for surveys of other building types too.
Over the past decades, surveys done around the world have
tried to come closer to the ASHRAE standards. The ASHRAE spon-
sored field studies in Townsville [19], San Francisco [92], southern
Quebec [93], and Kalgoorlie-Boulder [45] followed these protocols
to the dot. The study done in San Francisco [92] was the trend setter
which established the methodology followed not only by all sub-
sequent ASHRAE sponsored surveys but also by many other surveys
around the world. Not all surveyors are able to use such standard
set ups and measure all the environmental parameters at three
different heights. But there has been a continuous shift towards
trying to get the measurements needed for PMV calculations and
preferably in the immediate vicinity of the subject. Most surveys
have preferred, for better mobility, the use of something along the
lines of a cart loaded with all the sensors and data loggers. Mea-
surements are taken at one height which is generally the sitting
height of subjects. Sometimes authors have also measured other
variables that impact comfort: sound level, illumination level,
ventilation rate, concentration of pollutants etc. Outdoor climate
conditions are generally taken from a nearby meteorological sta-
tion or in case none is nearby, those values are also measured.
There is no well defined convention when it comes to choosing
how many responses to collect or over what duration to take the
survey. Different authors have worked with a hundred to a few
thousand responses, used longitudinal or transverse surveys and
sometimes the same study has involved both longitudinal and
transverse responses. Nicol et al. [52] have shown that one does not
always need a costly instrumental set up to be able to conduct a
field survey yielding consistent and valuable results. Certain sug-
gested guidelines on choosing survey subjects could be:
- Facing budget constraints, it is better to survey a large number
of subjects with a simple set of instruments [1].
- If the survey is taken over a few days only, the thermal envi-
ronments encountered may not be representative of the gen-
eral conditions. There might also be temporary malfunction of
HVAC equipments [123].
- When doing a longitudinal survey, if possible, replace subjects
after about three months so as to avoid both the risk of bias and
‘survey fatigue’ [103].
3.5.1. Survey questionnaire
Over time, questionnaires have also evolved. Early surveys used
to have just the question on thermal sensation. Most field studies
now include the ASHRAE seven point scale for sensation, McIntyre
100 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
scale for preference, some equivalent of the Bedford scale for com-
fort rating, a direct acceptability question, along with check lists for
clothing and activity in the past half hour or one hour. Additionally,
there may be questions regarding the different adaptive opportu-
nities available and how frequently subjects use such opportunities,
the subject’s rating on his/her productivity level, subjective rating of
sound and illumination levels, air quality, odours. Questionnaires
may have a section to collect background information on the subject
d like height, weight, ethnicity, gender, use of air conditioning at
home or in transport. Mostly, questionnaires are collected in form of
multiple choice questions on paper. There have been instances of
computer based [19,92] and web server based [86] questionnaires
too. The PMPCB also gives advisory on how to form and what to
include in comfort survey questionnaires [122]. The manual rec-
ommends that subjective responses be recorded on a continuous
scale, through web based or PC terminal based surveying, for “more
powerful statistical analysis”.
Surveys that use the ASHRAE scale to determine thermal
sensation and the Bedford scale to determine thermal comfort
levels give a mismatch between resultant votes for the two scales
[4,10,23,26,34]. One obvious explanation is that thermal sensation
is not the sole determining factor for thermal comfort. What also
plays a part in this inter scale discrepancy is that people need not
interpret a neutral sensation as comfortable or for that matter, a
cold/warm sensation as uncomfortable. As de Dear observed in the
post occupancy surveys done for two green buildings in Melbourne
and Sydney respectively, occupants may rate the buildings as
warmer/colder in summer/winter than mechanically conditioned
buildings but they are also more forgiving and accepting of the
buildings’ environment [124].
3.5.2. Adjusting to local traits
Survey methodologies have themselves “adapted” to local sit-
uations when they needed to. Researchers have used person to
person interviews either directly or through interpreters [15,31,69,
88], to suit local sensibilities, surveys in residences have been taken
solely by female experimenters [47], and survey questionnaires
have been translated to a multitude of world languages. The SCATs
project was conducted across multiple countries in Europe and
questionnaires were developed in all the local languages [104]. We
cite here the works where authors have explicitly mentioned about
use of questionnaires in a different language and the language
used: Arabic [46,47,49], Chinese [60,68], Japanese [87], Kurdish
[84], Nepali [15], Telugu [31], Thai [41], and Urdu [52].
3.5.3. Determining preferred temperature
Currently used survey practices do not follow a fixed process for
determining preferred temperature. Most authors regard the point
where equal number of subjects “want cooler” and “want warmer”
surroundings as the preferred temperature [4,5,13,19,21,25,34,39,
57,70,80,93,95]. This method was also used by de Dear and Brager
in their meta analysis [101]. Other methods include finding the
point where maximum subjects vote for “no change” [9,92,96] or
point where curves fitted with percentage of “warm dissatisfac-
tion” and “cold dissatisfaction” intersect [56].
3.5.4. Percentage dissatisfied
Several methods are in use for estimating acceptability or
lack of it from voting pattern and these different methods do
not have a lot in common with each other. One of the more
common ways is applying the PMV-PPD relation to field study
votes and assuming that an average thermal vote of 0.5 cor-
responds to 90% acceptability while an average thermal vote of
0.85 corresponds to 80% acceptability [35,46,47,91,93]. This
method makes the least amount of sense considering the
fundamentally different natures of a field study and Fanger’s
rational approach.
Another approach followed is classifying all votes outside the
central three categories of the ASHRAE seven point thermal sensa-
tion scale as unacceptable [25,51,56,68,87,92]. The problem with
doing so is that direct acceptability questions often reveal people
outside the central three categories also voting their environment as
acceptable or opting for ‘no change’ on the McIntyre scale [99]. The
approach that we consider to be most straight forward and least
likely to cause controversies is inclusion of an additional question in
the survey regarding acceptability or lack of it [44,55,62].
Brager et al. observed that use of different methods to gauge
dissatisfaction produces widely different results [99]. The same
conclusion can be drawn from the results of a number of field surveys
too [5,39,44,70]. Acceptability of occupants forms a major part of a
building’s evaluation. A unified and universally accepted method for
determining percentage of acceptability as well as preferred tem-
perature would help comparison of results from different surveys.
3.5.5. Choice of survey parameters
When calculating PMV values, there are two parameters which
have an inordinate amount of variation between surveys: chair
insulation and metabolic rate. Though all studies have considered
near sedentary subjects, the range of metabolic rates they assume
varies from 1 to 1.6 mets. It is to be noted that these are values
approximated for standard activities from databases depending on
the occupants answer to survey questions regarding their activity
rate. These values are not based on any actual field measurement
using calorimeters. One example of this difference is seen from
the studies in offices in San Francisco, Townsville, and southern
Quebec. All three studies were ASHRAE sponsored and had subjects
performing similar office activities. Yet the three studies took
metabolic values of 1.1, 1.3, and 1.2 mets respectively [19,92,93].
Similarly, a large range of values have been assumed for chair
insulation starting from 0.01 clo to 0.15 clo. While 0.15 clo might
make sense in certain office environments, an executive chair d for
which the insulation would be 0.15 clo [98] d is quite unlikely to be
at homes. So certain surveys done in residences using 0.15 clo for
chair insulation [4,9,34,96] does not seem meaningful.
We would like to stress here that values of metabolic activity or
clothing insulation do not have a direct impact on development of
adaptive models. Their use is confined to comparing the actual
thermal sensation votes with PMV values. However, uniformity of
such assumptions would help comparison between studies and
interpretation of results by other experimenters.
3.5.6. What index to use for the indoors?
In a field survey, the subjective comfort level reported needs to
be related to some representative measure of the indoor environ-
ment. The surveys we have covered in this work have used quite a
broad range of such indices: indoor air temperature, operative
temperature, globe temperature, ET*, and SET*. One may go for
complicated indices that include more of the environmental pa-
rameters and look more “complete”. But, as Humphreys observes,
globe temperature can be an adequate representation of indoor
thermal environment [102]. Later, de Dear and Brager found in their
seminal work on adaptive comfort that the best correlations were
obtained using operative temperature. They assert that behavioural
adaptation makes more complicated indices not fare as well [101].
Nicol and Humphreys concluded that more complicated indices
have less strong correlation with subjective expression of comfort
[104]. They also put forth that operative temperature performs well
enough as a representative of the indoor conditions and for
sedentary subjects, operative temperature can be approximated by
using a globe thermometer with a 40 mm diameter globe.
 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
3.6. Adaptive opportunities: their availability and use
Choice of adaptive adjustments by occupants is governed pri-
marily by three criteria: ease of use, effectiveness of use, and econ-
omy of use d the three Es [71]. When faced with a choice, occupants
will try to alter their environment (open doors or windows, switch
on a fan), then use methods affecting their person (change clothing,
take a bath, take more cool or hot drinks), and finally try moving to
more comfortable regions in the building [4,10,23,34,52,71]. The
order of enacting these adjustments follows a decreasing sense of
ease from the occupant’s viewpoint. An exception is seen in Nepal
where the traditional architecture is such that houses have cooler
and warmer regions (semi enclosed spaces or rooms with fire pla-
ces) [15]. At the same time, we must remember that not all adaptive
actions need be helpful in saving energy. The guiding force behind
any adaptive action is to restore comfort. Once in a while, people will
resort to such actions which are wasteful from energy consumption
viewpoint but nonetheless enhance the feeling of comfort. One
example could be occupants opening up windows to let fresh air in
while air-conditioners are operational [66]. In what follows, we
briefly cover the different adaptive opportunities available to occu-
pants and their usage as recorded in different surveys.
3.6.1. Use of air-conditioners
In a majority of the surveys we have considered, survey locations
are in countries where penetration of centralized climate control is
minimal. Though use of air-conditioners has increased many fold
over the last few decades in Europe [74] as well as in countries like
China, Brazil, India, Pakistan, and Singapore [2,7,10,32,68,125,126],
this use is mostly confined to window or split units. Such buildings
may be considered to be a type of mixed-mode building in their
operation. The cooling systems are under direct occupant control
instead of any automated controls. As noted by Brager and Baker,
mixed-mode buildings have been observed to do much better than
buildings with conventional air-conditioning when it comes to
occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort and air quality [127].
They have further observed that even amongst mixed-mode build-
ings, those buildings had more occupant satisfaction which provided
greater degrees of direct control to the user.
Since the control of window or split units remains in the hands of
the immediate user and there are no predetermined set point
temperatures, several studies have considered such buildings in the
same vein as FR buildings [10,27,33,42,51,52,71]. The idea is that
since the occupant is still exerting considerable influence, its more
useful to take the actual sensation vote approach than the predicted
mean vote approach. For occupants in these buildings, switching the
air-conditioner on/off is taken as just one more adaptive behaviour.
And it does seem to have similar usage pattern as any other adaptive
behaviour. What acts in favour of using air-conditioning is its ease
and effectiveness and what acts against it are the costs involved.
Unlike other adaptive measures, a person would just switch on the
gadget and maintain a particular temperature. In those instances
when economy of operation ceases to be an occupant concern,
people get used to air-conditioning and start maintaining cooler
temperatures, use adaptive opportunities earlier, are more sensitive
to temperature changes, and give up other adaptive actions in favour
of using the air-conditioner [27,68,70]. This has been described as
‘thermal indulgence’ by Indraganti [30].
Concerns for energy expense mean that an air-conditioner is
either used less, or maintained at a high temperature or used only
when temperatures are too high for other adaptive measures
[2,18,28,53,71]. The study done across Taiwan by Hwang et al. finds
that while the air-conditioners in offices were always on (as the
utility bill would be borne by the employer), people in their homes
used air conditioning sparingly and their first preference was
101
opening windows [71]. This would be an example where economy
trumps ease of use. At the same time, a few surveys done in MC
buildings resulted in occupants rating their thermal sensation as
cold/slightly cool [33,37,38,42,44,57,61]. This may imply that
conditioned buildings, designed in keeping with rational standards
like PMV, are often cooled beyond neutral/overcooled. But, such
inferences may often get hidden by the narrow range of tempera-
tures maintained in such buildings and the ability of PMV model to
account for clothing and metabolic adjustments [101,118].
What is also true is that studies done in mechanically cooled or
heated buildings have often come up with occupant complaints of
stuffiness, lack of fresh air, and unpleasant odour. There are exam-
ples where the occupants have kept windows open, even while air-
conditioning is operational, to satisfy their craving for “fresh air”
[66,69]. A few studies show that occupants have a perception of air-
conditioning as something unhealthy, of low ventilation quality, and
something that cuts them off from the outside [9,18]. The study by
Nakano et al. in air-conditioned offices d apart from showing in-
cidences of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) related symptoms d gives
a rather high concentration level of CO2 inside the building
(1200 ppm) [85]. For buildings using mechanical heating, incidences
of non-thermal discomfort like dry mouths, throat itching etc. in-
creases in the period of heating use [96]. This of course has more to
do with the levels of humidity maintained during conditioning.
3.6.2. Adaptive opportunities of buildings
Apart from a building’s design, the purpose of a building can also
help or hinder the cause of thermal comfort. For example, in a
classroom situation, not all the students have control over windows
or fans and during lessons, there are further restrictions on how they
use windows or shades [6,39,44,82,87,97]. Also, authors have noted
that occupants have less adaptive choices in offices than at homes
which leads them to be more stringent at judging office conditions
[71,84]. This finding is in agreement with Oseland’s and Karjalainen’s
works. Oseland concluded that even for similar thermal environment,
clothing resistance, and activity level, people rate their homes better
than their offices and their offices better than climate chambers [128].
Karjalainen’s survey showed that even the least satisfied group in
home environment is more comfortable than the most satisfied
group in offices [129]. It would appear hence that people vote closer
to comfort if they are given more adaptive opportunities and they are
more comfortable in places familiar to them. The concept of familiar
surroundings getting better comfort ratings is also noticed by
Indraganti in her field study of residences in Hyderabad [29]. Women,
who spent more time at home, voted more often within the comfort
band than men. The author goes on to suggest that the women’s fa-
miliarity with home surroundings may also be helping them to use
the available adaptive features more effectively.
The building type that has come up with a very bad record in terms
of occupant satisfaction is the open plan office [75,83,85]. This is most
likely due to the varied nature of occupants in such places and the
very minimal adaptive measures that are available in such buildings.
Certain adaptive opportunities are deeply ingrained in the
building structure and are thus available to the inhabitants without
need of extra effort. Buildings that have thicker walls or/and less
glazed surface provide more comfortable indoors [20,33,39,88,90].
Living in the ground floor of a structure means occupants do not
have to deal with direct solar radiation on their roofs and that also
can keep them cooler [20,25,28,77]. For occupants in the top floors,
this can translate to greater use of gadgets like air coolers and air
conditioners [28]. Being exposed to higher temperatures, as a
matter of course, changes the thermal history of the occupants of
top floor. While the higher temperatures experienced lead them to
vote less favourably and with lower acceptance, under situations
where the available adaptive opportunities are enough, these
102 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
occupants also report a higher neutral temperature due to their
thermal history [32].
What may seem counter intuitive at first glance are claims by
some occupants to be more comfortable in the higher (even top)
floors [9,10]. We believe this could be in part due to greater air
movement at higher floors and in part due to lower solar radiation
in high latitude locations or locations with rainforest type climates.
3.6.3. Endemic adaptations
Certain adaptations are specific to certain locations. In many
countries of the Indian subcontinent, it is customary for people not
to use footwear inside their homes. For these populations, this is an
effective and economic adaptation, ingrained in their culture. This
adaptation gets them in direct contact with the cooler floors and
keeps them more comfortable during hot weather [15,20]. This can
however be a disadvantage in certain locations across these coun-
tries that have cold winters and people have taken to wearing
socks, or socks and shoes indoors, during cold weather [15].
Similarly, the study in Ilam [84] shows that while people at
homes sit on the cooler floors during daytime, in workplace people
have to sit on chairs thus adding to their overall clothing insulation.
The study finally yielded a lower neutral temperature for the office
population. This ‘sitting on the floor’ type of adaptation was also
used by subjects in India and Libya [30,49].
The study done in Hyderabad [27] found people taking a post
midday-meal siesta. This decreased their activity level and helped
them to get past the hottest period of the day. We have not found
other authors explicitly mention about such an adaptive measure
though its likely to be common in most hot and humid regions.
3.6.4. Common adaptive measures
Opening windows is one of the most favoured adaptive measure
across countries [4,9,10,27,34,52,58,66e68,71,90]. Window opening
is attractive in terms of its ease, effectiveness, and economy of use.
Most of the above surveys also had high frequencies of door opening
instances amongst occupants. Opening windows decrease the feeling
of “stuffiness” and increases the wind speed indoors. Due to this,
residents do not mind opening up windows even during cold seasons
to let in some fresh air [67]. As Zhang et al. observe from the responses
of office occupants, the three most common reasons for opening
windows both during summer and winter were: “to feel cool”, “to feel
more air movement”, and to “let in fresh air”. On the other hand, the
primary reason for closing windows during summer was “to reduce
outdoor noises” while in winter, windows were closed “to feel
warmer” and “to reduce outdoor noises” [119]. Even if the outdoor
temperature is higher, open windows do not allow solar heat gain to
be trapped in and enhance wind velocities, thus aiding sweat evap-
oration [130]. Mostly however, people in hotter climates close their
windows when outdoor temperatures go beyond a certain value [28].
Use of electric fans is quite widespread in tropical and humid
climates [4,10,18,20,36,68,71,72] due to their effectiveness in
obtaining larger indoor air velocities and economy vis-à-vis air-
conditioners and air-coolers. People also use smaller, personal
fans to locally increase air velocity in their immediate surroundings
[86]. The other extreme situation is found in places where a sig-
nificant percentage of the population does not have fans or is not
familiar to fan usage [9,34,58,90]. Under moderate conditions,
people with access to fans have been observed to disregard other
adaptive actions like opening windows, changing clothing etc. in
favour of the ease of using a fan [30]. This observation of course sits
well with the three E point of view. As temperatures rise, ceiling
fans in rooms with exposed roofs end up aiding circulation of the
warmer air from near the ceiling. This also leads occupants to
switch off these fans and depend more on coolers, conditioners,
and pedestal fans [28].
In cold climates, adaptive measures include use of electric or hand
held heaters [52,53,55,88,96] or use of wood burning stoves over
countrysides [15,55]. For winter, people may also choose thicker
blankets to enhance comfort [15]. A rather obvious adaptive mea-
sure, as winters come up, is the closing of doors and windows [67].
3.6.5. Clothing adaptations
When thinking of use of clothings for thermal comfort, one is
reminded of an old Norwegian proverb: “There is no such thing as
bad weather, just bad clothing”. For long have clothing changes been
an economical and effective method of achieving comfort in varied
climatic conditions [112]. Even rational models of thermal comfort
and corresponding comfort standards give considerable impor-
tance to clothing variations [98,131,132]. And in situations when
occupants are allowed flexibility in their dressing pattern, varying
clothing is seen as an easy, economic, and effective manner of
adapting to the environment. So we discuss the nature of clothing
adaptations in a section of its own.
Clothing adaptations are often seen reaching the point that we
would like to term as “adaptive saturation”. The phenomenon is
mostly observed in hot seasons and less commonly during cold
weather. Schiavon and Lee found that variation of clo values had
greatest dependence on the outdoor air temperature measured at
6 a.m. and the indoor operative temperature [114]. As the climate of a
location progressively gets warmer, clothing pattern gets lighter till it
reaches a minimal socially acceptable limit. So from a certain point on,
while the temperature might keep increasing, clothing remains the
same. Thus, summer correlations found between clo values and in-
door or outdoor temperatures are not very strong [2,6,52,53,56,64,70,
76,84,88,94]. Due to this reason, clothing patterns are less variable
during summer and scope for adjustments in clothing patterns are
lesser during warm periods [114]. A similar phenomenon is some-
times observed with winter clothing [52,56,88]. Rohles and McCul-
lough have also observed that as people put on more layers to counter
decreasing temperatures, a point does come up where the ensemble
starts to get too bulky, unfashionable, and interferes with regular
lifestyle [112]. However, occurrence of clothing adaptive saturation is
much less common for winter clothing. In fact, when regression
equations are developed between indoor temperature and comfort
votes for warm and cold seasons separately, it is found that the slope
of the line is smaller for winter equations [6,8,45,80]. This lower
sensitivity to temperature changes and increased adaptability is likely
because of the greater clothing variation.
Several authors have found that traditional clothing of a location
gives people much more flexibility and adaptability, allowing them
to withstand the broad ranges of temperature they face in FR
buildings [15,31,41,50,52,84,88].
A form of clothing adaptation that has been particularly
observed amongst students is putting on and off extra clothing like
jackets or sweatshirts, while moving between classes, reading
rooms, and outdoors [5,44,87]. This behaviour is unlikely to be
noticed in offices due to the formal surroundings. At residences,
people know what kind of thermal environment to expect. They
dress accordingly and require minimal changes over time. Students
on the other hand are able to vary clothing to suit the transients and
get maximum thermal satisfaction.
Authors of two studies done in Libya and Tunisia [50,51] have
developed a quadratic fit between the clothing and outdoor tem-
perature data. Using these equations with high values of outdoor
temperature, that one might likely encounter in a desert climate
(40e50
C/104e122
F), the clothing resistance value increases.
Normally one expects clothing to get lighter with higher temper-
ature but the above phenomenon shown by the regression equa-
tions is nonetheless practical. People in deserts do try to cover up
greater portions of their body to avoid exposure to direct sunlight.
 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
More clothing also encourages perspiration which ultimately con-
tributes to keeping the person cooler in a dry climate [50,51].
3.6.6. Impediments to adaptive measures
A well accepted precept of adaptive theory is that “a person is not a
passive receiver of thermal sensation but an active participant in a
dynamic equilibrium with the thermal environment” [1,133]. As
Humphreys and Nicol put it, if adaptation of the occupants is inade-
quate, it is likely due to the circumstances of those occupants rather
than the thermal environment [1]. Common obstacles preventing full
exercise of adaptive opportunities are : privacy, security concerns,
pollution, noise, and bugs. Such obstacles often alter the perception
regarding ease of use or effectiveness of an adaptive measure. Concerns
for privacy, security, outdoor noises, or bugs entering living quarters
often lead to occupants closing their windows [10,25,32,34]. In certain
regions, power cuts hinder the active use of electrical appliances like
fans, air-coolers, air-conditioners, or electric heaters [30,88].
Restrictions on dressing due to societal acceptance or workplace
rules also lead to incomplete adaptation. Earlier, we have already
discussed about adaptive saturation of clothing in summer and winter.
Dressing options for women is often dictated by societal acceptance
[27] or requirements of fashion [30] rather than thermal comfort. Use
of uniforms minimizes variation of clothing resistance values across
different seasons and limits choice of people to vary their clothing
according to changing weather [22,84,86,87]. An interesting limita-
tion to clothing choices has come up with globalization. Professionals
around the world have given up their traditional clothing in favour of
western business outfits, irrespective of the local climate.
When people are not able to exercise their adaptive options,
they try to use more power intensive methods like turning on the
air-conditioner. But if such a course of action is not available, oc-
cupants are dissatisfied and rate their surroundings very poorly.
3.6.7. Some interesting contrasts
The study done by Han et al. in Changsha and its neighbourhood
[55] shows that rural residents have greater tolerance to similar
climatic conditions and vote more acceptably than their urban
counterparts. The reason could be a combination of better accli-
matization and lower expectations of the rural population. Along
similar lines is the finding of Indraganti from her study in Hyder-
abad [29]. Subjects from higher economic groups were found to be
more dependent on gadgets like air-coolers and air-conditioners for
comfort while neglecting adaptive measures. People not so well off
were better adept at using adaptive control strategies. They showed
more tolerance of their environment, higher satisfaction, and
higher neutral temperature. The author found that even the com-
fort bands were different for the different economic groups.
Yamtraipat et al. analysed their data after grouping the subjects on
basis of their education levels and found that subjects with higher
education voted at higher values of thermal sensation/warm
discomfort [42]. The authors found that this could be a side effect of
the fact that people with higher education often have such job pro-
files that require them to wear clothes with greater insulation d like
multi-piece suits.
Studies that have analysed their subjects by grouping them into
those who have air-conditioning at home and those who do not,
have also found different neutral temperatures and different ther-
mal sensitivity for the two groups [25,42]. This result is essentially
similar to the one obtained by Wang et al. in Harbin [96], where the
occupants have a slightly lower sensitivity to temperature changes
before heating started than when heating is in use.
The study done in Hyderabad found that comfort votes were
more favourable in residences where owners lived than in resi-
dences housing tenants [27]. The reason given by the author is that
owners were more active in adding certain fitments to their places
103
which made use of adaptive opportunities more possible without
loss of privacy or the sense of security.
Liu et al.’s field study of offices in the Chongqing university revealed
that as levels of sunlight depend on a room’s orientation, so the
orientation affects frequency and nature of occupant adaptive behav-
iours [66]. Cao et al. found that subjects who were not used to indoor
heating during winter rated their surroundings warmer than those
who had gotten used to the heating [94]. They also found that this kind
of adaptation, to not using heating, took about an year to be lost.
4. Conclusions
With changing climate, concerns regarding CO2 emissions, and
fossil fuel depletion, there is an increased drive towards energy
economy. Under these conditions, it is not a far fetched idea that in
the near future, natural ventilation and low energy cooling systems
would be the norm instead of the fringe. The imperative would be to
have the right standards and design methods for the new systems
so that we can effect energy economy without sacrificing comfort.
There exists a large body of literature on thermal comfort field
surveys and their applications to adaptive comfort models. Ideally,
we could have a field study in every habitation and determine an ACE
suitable for the particular location and culture. Since economic and
time constraints mean that such an idealization is unlikely to happen,
current standards provide generalizations of global data to aid and
inform the building designers. Wherever possible, these general-
izations can be improved with local field surveys. The current work
tries to divide findings from field surveys on basis of climatic zones
and further tries to find out important trends in thermal comfort of
occupants. We expect these findings can be of aid in regions where
no previous field study on thermal comfort has been undertaken.
Several concepts in the field of adaptive comfort have been
receiving increased attention and are being continuously better un-
derstood. Examples would be use of RMT as a preferred index of
outdoor conditions, use and acceptability of greater air circulation in
occupied zones, and acceptance that humidity levels (apart from
rather extreme values) do not have a very large effect on thermal
comfort sensation. There has been an attempt to make aspects of
comfort surveys d like the clo and met values being used in analysis,
questionnaires, instruments and measurement locations etc. d more
uniform so that comparison of results and sharing of data can be aided.
There is also the growing realization that both the non-availability of
adaptive means and hindrances to their exercise can make occupants
feel uncomfortable and rate their environments poorly.
We summarize some of our more relevant observations here:
- Excepting type A climates, other climate types have rather broad
ranges of neutral temperature and comfort zones. This is ex-
pected since type A climates have minimal seasonal variations
- Buildings, by their design and purpose of use, can help or hurt
the cause of adaptive behaviours.
- Available evidence suggests that neutral temperatures deter-
mined through field surveys do not change over reasonable
intervals of time.
- Adaptive opportunities are brought into play based on their
effectiveness, ease of application, and economy. Occupants will
always try to maximize all three Es and may employ multiple
adaptive actions, in parallel, to achieve this.
- When money is not a concern, people will prefer to ‘indulge’ in
using the ease and effectiveness of gadgets like coolers and
conditioners. In long term, such use makes them less depen-
dent on other adaptive actions.
- Certain adaptive actions, like opening windows, are popular in
all climate types while certain actions, like sitting on cool
floors, are limited by climatic and cultural traits.
104 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106

Appendix A. Adaptive comfort models.

Table A.1
Adaptive comfort equations.

Climatic zone Location/source Equation Remarks

Meta studies Humphreys [1] Tn ¼ 11.9 þ 0.534To pffiffiffi 2 FR buildings
Humphreys [1] Tn ¼ 23:9 þ 0:295ðTo  22Þexpð½ðTo  22Þ=ð24pffiffiffi
2Þ Þ MC buildings
Humphreys [1] Tn ¼ 24:2 þ 0:430ðTo  22Þexpð½ðTo  22Þ=ð20 2Þ2 Þ MC and FR
Auliciems [1] Tn ¼ 9.22 þ 0.48Ta þ 0.14To MC and FR
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 [98] Tn ¼ 17.8 þ 0.31To FR buildings
EN15251 [103] Tn ¼ 19.39 þ 0.302TRMT; TRMT > 10
C FR buildings
Tn ¼ 22.88
C; TRMT 
C
Type B Pakistan [52] Tc ¼ 18.5 þ 0.36Toh FR buildings, historic outdoor mean temperature
Tunisia [51] Tn ¼ 11.56 þ 0.532TRMT FR buildings
Type C Shanghai [11] Tn ¼ 15.12 þ 0.42To FR buildings
Hong Kong [62] Tn ¼ 18.303 þ 0.158To MC buildings
Bari, Italy [80] Tn ¼ 17.80 þ 0.315TRMT MC and FR
Type D Harbin [9] Tn ¼ 11.802 þ 0.486To FR buildings, in summer

Here, To is outdoor monthly mean temperature; Toh is the historical outdoor monthly mean temperature (averaged over 30 years in the given case); Ta is the indoor air
temperature; Tn is the neutral or comfort temperature; TRMT is the running mean temperature. Both the local ACEs given here that use TRMT as an index of outdoor temperature,
use similar formulations for TRMT as EN15251. All temperature units are in degrees Celsius.

[22] Andreasi WA, Lamberts R, Cândido C. Thermal acceptability assessment in

References
[1] Humphreys MA, Nicol JF. Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal
comfort. ASHRAE Trans 1998;104(1):991e1004.
[2] Yang W, Zhang G. Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated and air-
conditioned buildings in humid subtropical climate zone in China. Int J
Biometeorol 2008;52(5):385e98.
[3] Cheng V, Ng E. Comfort temperatures for naturally ventilated buildings in
Hong Kong. Archit Sci Rev 2006;49(2):179e82.
[4] Feriadi H, Wong NH, Chandra S, Cheong KW. Adaptive behaviour and ther-
mal comfort in Singapore’s naturally ventilated housing. Build Res Inf
2003;31(1):13e23.
[5] Hwang RL, Lin TP, Kuo NJ. Field experiments on thermal comfort in campus
classrooms in Taiwan. Energy Build 2006;38(1):53e62.
[6] Hwang RL, Lin TP, Chen CP, Kuo NJ. Investigating the adaptive model of
thermal comfort for naturally ventilated school buildings in Taiwan. Int J
Biometeorol 2009;53(2):189e200.
[7] Ji XL, Lou WZ, Dai ZZ, Wang BG, Liu SY. Predicting thermal comfort in
Shanghai’s non-air-conditioned buildings. Build Res Inf 2006;34(5):507e14.
[8] Li B, Yu W, Liu M, Li N. Climatic strategies of indoor thermal environment for
residential buildings in Yangtze river region, China. Indoor Built Environ
2011;20(1):101e11.
[9] Wang Z, Zhang L, Zhao J, He Y. Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated
residential buildings in Harbin. Energy Build 2010;42(12):2406e15.
[10] Wong NH, Feriadi H, Lim PY, Tham KW, Sekhar C, Cheong KW. Thermal
comfort evaluation of naturally ventilated public housing in Singapore. Build
Environ 2002;37(12):1267e77.
[11] Ye XJ, Zhou ZP, Lian ZW, Liu HM, Li CZ, Liu YM. Field study of a thermal
environment and adaptive model in Shanghai. Indoor Air 2006;16(4):320e6.
[12] Yun GY, Kong HJ, Kim JT. The effect of seasons and prevailing environments
on adaptive comfort temperatures in open plan offices. Indoor Built Environ
2012;21(1):41e7.
[13] Zhang G, Zheng C, Yang W, Zhang Q, Moschandreas DJ. Thermal comfort
investigation of naturally ventilated classrooms in a subtropical region. In-
door Built Environ 2007;16(2):148e58.
[14] Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World map of the Köppen-
Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 2006;15(3):259e63.
[15] Rijal HB, Yoshida H, Umemiya N. Seasonal and regional differences in neutral
temperatures in Nepalese traditional vernacular houses. Build Environ
2010;45(12):2743e53.
[16] Holmes MJ, Hacker JN. Climate change, thermal comfort and energy:
meeting the design challenges of the 21st century. Energy Build
2007;39(7):802e14.
[17] Rubel F, Kottek M. Observed and projected climate shifts 1901e2100
depicted by world maps of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Mete-
orol Z 2010;19(2):135e41.
[18] Williamson TJ, Coldicutt S, Penny REC. Aspects of thermal preferences in
housing in a hot humid climate, with particular reference to Darwin,
Australia. Int J Biometeorol 1991;34(4):251e8.
[19] de Dear R, Fountain M. Field experiments on occupant comfort and office
thermal environments in a hot-humid climate. ASHRAE Trans 1994;100(2):
457e75.
[20] Mallick FH. Thermal comfort and building design in the tropical climates.
Energy Build 1996;23(3):161e7.
[21] Cândido C, de Dear R, Lamberts R. Combined thermal acceptability and air
movement assessments in a hot humid climate. Build Environ 2011;46(2):
379e85.
buildings located in hot and humid regions in Brazil. Build Environ
2010;45(5):1225e32.
[23] Tablada A, De la Peña AM, De Troyer F. Thermal comfort of naturally
ventilated buildings in warm-humid climates: field survey. In: Proceedings
of the 22nd conference on passive low energy architecture. Beirut, Lebanon:
PLEA; 2005.
[24] Tablada A, de Troyer F, Blocken B, Carmeliet J, Verschure H. On natural
ventilation and thermal comfort in compact urban environments e the Old
Havana case. Build Environ 2009;44(9):1943e58.
[25] Rajasekar E, Ramachandraiah A, Adaptive comfort and thermal expectations
e a subjective evaluation in hot humid climate. In: Proceedings of confer-
ence adapting to change: new thinking on comfort. Windsor, London, UK;
2010, p. 9e11.
[26] Deb C, Ramachandraiah A. Evaluation of thermal comfort in a rail terminal
location in India. Build Environ 2010;45(11):2571e80.
[27] Indraganti M. Adaptive use of natural ventilation for thermal comfort in
Indian apartments. Build Environ 2010;45(6):1490e507.
[28] Indraganti M. Behavioural adaptation and the use of environmental controls
in summer for thermal comfort in apartments in India. Energy Build
2010;42(7):1019e25.
[29] Indraganti M, Rao KD. Effect of age, gender, economic group and tenure on
thermal comfort: a field study in residential buildings in hot and dry climate
with seasonal variations. Energy Build 2010;42(3):273e81.
[30] Indraganti M. Thermal comfort in apartments in India: adaptive use of
environmental controls and hindrances. Renew Energy 2011;36(4):1182e9.
[31] Indraganti M. Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated apartments in sum-
mer: findings from a field study in Hyderabad, India. Appl Energy
2010;87(3):866e83.
[32] Indraganti M. Using the adaptive model of thermal comfort for obtaining
indoor neutral temperature: findings from a field study in Hyderabad, India.
Build Environ 2010;45(3):519e36.
[33] Karyono TH. Report on thermal comfort and building energy studies in
Jakarta, Indonesia. Build Environ 2000;35(1):77e90.
[34] Feriadi H, Wong NH. Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated houses in
Indonesia. Energy Build 2004;36(7):614e26.
[35] Ogbonna AC, Harris DJ. Thermal comfort in sub-Saharan Africa: field study
report in Jos-Nigeria. Appl Energy 2008;85(1):1e11.
[36] Hussein I, Rahman MHA, Maria T. Field studies on thermal comfort of air-
conditioned and non air-conditioned buildings in Malaysia. In: 3rd Inter-
national conference on energy and environment; 2009. ICEE 2009, IEEE,
2009. p. 360e8.
[37] Daghigh R, Adam NM, Sahari BB. Ventilation parameters and thermal com-
fort of naturally and mechanically ventilated offices. Indoor Built Environ
2009;18(2):113e22.
[38] de Dear RJ, Leow KG, Foo SC. Thermal comfort in the humid tropics: field
experiments in air conditioned and naturally ventilated buildings in
Singapore. Int J Biometeorol 1991;34(4):259e65.
[39] Wong NH, Khoo SS. Thermal comfort in classrooms in the tropics. Energy
Build 2003;35(4):337e51.
[40] Busch JF. Thermal responses to the Thai office environment. ASHRAE Trans
1990;96(1):859e72.
[41] Busch JF. A tale of two populations: thermal comfort in air-conditioned and
naturally ventilated offices in Thailand. Energy Build 1992;18(3):235e49.
[42] Yamtraipat N, Khedari J, Hirunlabh J. Thermal comfort standards for air
conditioned buildings in hot and humid Thailand considering additional
factors of acclimatization and education level. Solar Energy 2005;78(4):
504e17.
 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
[43] Rangsiraksa P. Thermal comfort in Bangkok residential buildings, Thailand.
In: Proceedings of the 23rd conference on passive and low energy archi-
tecture (PLEA2006). Geneva; 2006. p. 6e8.
[44] Kwok AG. Thermal comfort in tropical classrooms. ASHRAE Trans 1998;104(1):
1031e50.
[45] Cena K, de Dear R. Thermal comfort and behavioural strategies in office
buildings located in a hot-arid climate. J Therm Biol 2001;26(4):
409e14.
[46] Farghal A, Wagner A. Studying the adaptive comfort approach within a hot
dry climate: a case study in educational buildings in the Egyptian climate. In:
Proceedings of conference air conditioning and the low carbon cooling
challenge, Windsor, 2008. NCEUB; 2008.
[47] Al-ajmi FF, Loveday DL. Indoor thermal conditions and thermal comfort in
air-conditioned domestic buildings in the dry-desert climate of Kuwait. Build
Environ 2010;45(3):704e10.
[48] Taki AH, Ealiwa MA, Howarth AT, Seden MR. Assessing thermal comfort in
Ghadames, Libya: application of the adaptive model. Build Serv Eng Res
Technol 1999;20(4):205e10.
[49] Ealiwa MA, Taki AH, Howarth AT, Seden MR. An investigation into thermal
comfort in the summer season of Ghadames, Libya. Build Environ
2001;36(2):231e7.
[50] Akair A, Bánhidi L. Thermal comfort investigation in Libya. Mech Eng
2007;51(1):45e51.
[51] Bouden C, Ghrab N. An adaptive thermal comfort model for the Tunisian
context: a field study results. Energy Build 2005;37(9):952e63.
[52] Nicol JF, Raja IA, Allaudin A, Jamy GN. Climatic variations in comfortable
temperatures: the Pakistan projects. Energy Build 1999;30(3):261e79.
[53] Liu W, Zheng Y, Deng Q, Yang L. Human thermal adaptive behaviour in
naturally ventilated offices for different outdoor air temperatures: a case
study in Changsha China. Build Environ 2012;50(0):76e89.
[54] Li B, Tan M, Liu H, Ma X, Zhang W. Occupant’s perception and preference of
thermal environment in free-running buildings in China. Indoor Built Envi-
ron 2010;19(4):405e12.
[55] Han J, Yang W, Zhou J, Zhang G, Zhang Q, Moschandreas DJ. A comparative
analysis of urban and rural residential thermal comfort under natural
ventilation environment. Energy Build 2009;41(2):139e45.
[56] Yao R, Liu J, Li B. Occupants’ adaptive responses and perception of thermal
environment in naturally conditioned university classrooms. Appl Energy
2010;87(3):1015e22.
[57] Han J, Zhang G, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Liu J, Tian L, et al. Field study on occupants’
thermal comfort and residential thermal environment in a hot-humid
climate of China. Build Environ 2007;42(12):4043e50.
[58] Junjie Z, Ling J, Cunen C, Qinglin M. Thermal comfort of naturally ventilated
houses in countryside of subtropical region. In: International conference on
electric technology and civil engineering (ICETCE), 2011. IEEE; 2011. p.
6371e5.
[59] Zhang Y, Wang J, Chen H, Zhang J, Meng Q. Thermal comfort in naturally
ventilated buildings in hot-humid area of China. Build Environ 2010;45(11):
2562e70.
[60] Chow TT, Fong KF, Givoni B, Lin Z, Chan ALS. Thermal sensation of Hong Kong
people with increased air speed, temperature and humidity in air-
conditioned environment. Build Environ 2010;45(10):2177e83.
[61] Fong KF, Chow TT, Li C. Comfort zone of air speeds and temperatures for air-
conditioned environment in the subtropical Hong Kong. Indoor Built Environ
2010;19(3):375e81.
[62] Mui KWH, Chan WTD. Adaptive comfort temperature model of air-
conditioned building in Hong Kong. Build Environ 2003;38(6):837e52.
[63] Mui KW. Energy policy for integrating the building environmental perfor-
mance model of an air conditioned building in a subtropical climate. Energy
Convers Manag 2006;47(15):2059e69.
[64] Wei S, Sun Y, Li M, Lin W, Zhao D, Shi Y, et al. Indoor thermal environment
evaluations and parametric analyses in naturally ventilated buildings in dry
season using a field survey and PMVe-PPDe model. Build Environ
2011;46(6):1275e83.
[65] Yang W, Zhang G. Air movement preferences observed in naturally venti-
lated buildings in humid subtropical climate zone in China. Int J Biometeorol
2009;53(6):563e73.
[66] Liu J, Yao R, Wang J, Li B. Occupants’ behavioural adaptation in workplaces
with non-central heating and cooling systems. Appl Therm Eng 2012;35(0):
40e54.
[67] Peng C. Survey of thermal comfort in residential buildings under natural
conditions in hot humid and cold wet seasons in Nanjing. Front Archit Civil
Eng China 2010;4(4):503e11.
[68] Zhang Y, Chen H, Meng Q. Thermal comfort in buildings with split air-
conditioners in hot-humid area of China. Build Environ 2013;64:213e24.
[69] Wong LT, Fong KNK, Mui KW, Wong WWY, Lee LW. A field survey of the
expected desirable thermal environment for older people. Indoor Built En-
viron 2009;18(4):336e45.
[70] Cheng MJ, Hwang RL, Lin TP. Field experiments on thermal comfort re-
quirements for campus dormitories in Taiwan. Indoor Built Environ
2008;17(3):191e202.
[71] Hwang RL, Cheng MJ, Lin TP, Ho MC. Thermal perceptions, general adapta-
tion methods and occupant’s idea about the trade-off between thermal
comfort and energy saving in hotehumid regions. Build Environ 2009;44(6):
1128e34.
105
[72] Liang HH, Lin TP, Hwang RL. Linking occupants’ thermal perception and
building thermal performance in naturally ventilated school buildings. Appl
Energy 2012;94:355e63.
[73] Matias L, Almeida S, Pina Santos C, Rebelo M, Correia Guedes M. Adaptive
thermal comfort for buildings in Portugal based on occupants’ thermal
perception. In: Proceedings of PLEA2009-26th conference on passive and
low energy architecture, Quebec City, Canada; 2009. p. 22e4.
[74] Guedes MC, Matias L, Santos CP. Thermal comfort criteria and building
design: field work in Portugal. Renew Energy 2009;34(11):2357e61.
[75] Moujalled B, Cantin R, Guarracino G. Adaptive thermal comfort evaluation in
a field study. In: International conference on passive and low energy cooling
for the built environment (PALENC). Santorini, Greece; 2005.
[76] Moujalled B, Cantin R, Guarracino G. Comparison of thermal comfort algorithms
in naturally ventilated office buildings. Energy Build 2008;40(12):2215e23.
[77] Wagner A, Gossauer E, Moosmann C, Gropp T, Leonhart R. Thermal comfort
and workplace occupant satisfaction d results of field studies in German low
energy office buildings. Energy Build 2007;39(7):758e69.
[78] Jung GJ, Song SK, Ahn YC, Oh GS, Im YB. Experimental research on thermal
comfort in the university classroom of regular semesters in Korea. J Mech Sci
Technol 2011;25(2):503e12.
[79] Sharma MR, Ali S. Tropical summer index d a study of thermal comfort of
Indian subjects. Build Environ 1986;21(1):11e24.
[80] Fato I, Martellotta F, Chiancarella C. Thermal comfort in the climatic condi-
tions of Southern Italy. ASHRAE Trans 2004;110(2):578e93.
[81] Corgnati SP, Filippi M, Viazzo S. Perception of the thermal environment in
high school and university classrooms: subjective preferences and thermal
comfort. Build Environ 2007;42(2):951e9.
[82] Corgnati SP, Ansaldi R, Filippi M. Thermal comfort in Italian classrooms
under free running conditions during mid seasons: assessment through
objective and subjective approaches. Build Environ 2009;44(4):785e92.
[83] Ricciardi P, Buratti C. Thermal comfort in open plan offices in northern Italy:
an adaptive approach. Build Environ 2012;56(0):314e20.
[84] Heidari S, Sharples S. A comparative analysis of short-term and long-term
thermal comfort surveys in Iran. Energy Build 2002;34(6):607e14.
[85] Nakano J, Tanabe S, Kimura K. Differences in perception of indoor environment
between Japanese and non-Japanese workers. Energy Build 2002;34(6):615e21.
[86] Goto T, Mitamura T, Yoshino H, Tamura A, Inomata E. Long-term field survey
on thermal adaptation in office buildings in Japan. Build Environ
2007;42(12):3944e54.
[87] Kwok AG, Chun C. Thermal comfort in Japanese schools. Solar Energy
2003;74(3):245e52.
[88] Humphreys Revd MA. An adaptive approach to the thermal comfort of office
workers in North West Pakistan. Renew Energy 1994;5(5):985e92.
[89] Humphreys MA. A study of the thermal comfort of primary school children
in summer. Build Environ 1977;12(4):231e9.
[90] Raja IA, Nicol JF, McCartney KJ, Humphreys MA. Thermal comfort: use of
controls in naturally ventilated buildings. Energy Build 2001;33(3):235e44.
[91] Oseland NA. Acceptable temperature ranges in naturally ventilated and air-
conditioned offices. ASHRAE Trans 1998;104(1):1018e30.
[92] Schiller G, Arens EA, Bauman F, Benton C, Fountain M, Doherty T. A field
study of thermal environments and comfort in office buildings. ASHRAE
Trans 1988;94(2):280e308.
[93] Donnini G, Molina J, Martello C, Lai DHC, Lai HK, Chang CY, et al. Field study
of occupant comfort and office thermal environments in a cold climate.
ASHRAE Trans 1997;103:205e20.
[94] Cao B, Zhu Y, Ouyang Q, Zhou X, Huang L. Field study of human thermal
comfort and thermal adaptability during the summer and winter in Beijing.
Energy Build 2011;43(5):1051e6.
[95] Wang Z. A field study of the thermal comfort in residential buildings in
Harbin. Build Environ 2006;41(8):1034e9.
[96] Wang Z, Zhang L, Zhao J, He Y, Li A. Thermal responses to different residential
environments in Harbin. Build Environ 2011;46(11):2170e8.
[97] Mors S, Hensen JLM, Loomans MGLC, Boerstra AC. Adaptive thermal comfort
in primary school classrooms: creating and validating PMV-based comfort
charts. Build Environ 2011;46(12):2454e61.
[98] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2004. Thermal comfort conditions for human
occupancy. Atlanta: ASHRAE; 2004.
[99] Brager G, Fountain M, Benton C, Arens EA, Bauman F. A comparison of
methods for assessing thermal sensation and acceptability in the field. In:
Proceedings of conference thermal comfort: past, present and future. Wat-
ford, U.K: Building Research Establishment; 1993. p. 17e39.
[100] Humphreys MA, Hancock M. Do people like to feel ‘neutral’?: exploring the
variation of the desired thermal sensation on the ASHRAE scale. Energy Build
2007;39(7):867e74.
[101] de Dear RJ, Brager GS. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference. ASHRAE Trans 1998;104(1):145e67.
[102] Humphreys Revd MA. Thermal comfort temperatures world-wide d the
current position. Renew Energy 1996;8(1):139e44.
[103] McCartney KJ, Nicol JF. Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Europe.
Energy Build 2002;34(6):623e35.
[104] Nicol F, Humphreys M. Derivation of the adaptive equations for thermal
comfort in free-running buildings in European standard EN15251. Build
Environ 2010;45(1):11e7.
[105] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010. Thermal comfort conditions for human
occupancy. Atlanta: ASHRAE; 2010.
106 A.K. Mishra, M. Ramgopal / Building and Environment 64 (2013) 94e106
[106] Ferrari S, Zanotto V. Adaptive comfort: analysis and application of the main
indices. Build Environ 2012;49(0):25e32.
[107] Fanger PO, Toftum J. Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned
buildings in warm climates. Energy Build 2002;34(6):533e6.
[108] Frank SM, Raja SN, Bulcao C, Goldstein DS. Age-related thermoregulatory
differences during core cooling in humans. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp
Physiol 2000;279(1):R349e54.
[109] Kenney WL, Munce TA. Invited review: aging and human temperature
regulation. J Appl Physiol 2003;95(6):2598e603.
[110] Young AJ, Lee DT. Aging and human cold tolerance. Exp Aging Res
1997;23(1):45e67.
[111] Pandolf KB. Aging and human heat tolerance. Exp Aging Res 1997;23(1):
69e105.
[112] Rohles F, McCullough E. Clothing as a key to energy conservation. Ind Eng
Chem Prod Res Dev 1981;20(1):18e23.
[113] Parsons KC. The effects of gender, acclimation state, the opportunity to
adjust clothing and physical disability on requirements for thermal comfort.
Energy Build 2002;34(6):593e9.
[114] Schiavon S, Lee KH. Dynamic predictive clothing insulation models based on
outdoor air and indoor operative temperatures. Build Environ 2013;59(0):
250e60.
[115] Tikuisis P, Meunier P, Jubenville C. Human body surface area: measurement
and prediction using three dimensional body scans. Eur J Appl Physiol
2001;85(3):264e71.
[116] Mackowiak PA, Wasserman SS, Levine MM. A critical appraisal of 98.6 de-
grees F, the upper limit of the normal body temperature, and other legacies
of Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc 1992;268(12):
1578e80.
[117] Terai Y, Asayama M, Ogawa T, Sugenoya J, Miyagawa T. Circadian variation of
preferred environmental temperature and body temperature. J Therm Biol
1985;10(3):151e6.
[118] Nicol F. Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hotehumid tropics. En-
ergy Build 2004;36(7):628e37.
[119] Zhang H, Arens E, Fard SA, Huizenga C, Paliaga G, Brager G, et al. Air movement
preferences observed in office buildings. Int J Biometeorol 2007;51(5):349e60.
[120] Givoni B, Khedari J, Wong NH, Feriadi H, Noguchi M. Thermal sensation
responses in hot, humid climates: effects of humidity. Build Res Inf
2006;34(5):496e506.
[121] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992. Thermal comfort conditions for human
occupancy. Atlanta: ASHRAE; 1992.
[122] ASHRAE. Performance measurement protocols for commercial buildings.
Atlanta: ASHRAE; 2010.
[123] Humphreys MA, Nicol JF. Outdoor temperature and indoor thermal comfort:
raising the precision of the relationship for the 1998 ASHRAE database of
field studies. ASHRAE Trans 2000;106:485e92.
[124] de Dear R. Adaptive comfort applications in Australia and impacts on
building energy consumption. In: Proceedings of the sixth international
conference on indoor air quality, ventilation and energy conservation in
buildings: sustainable built environment, Sendai, Japan; 2007.
[125] Nicol F, Roaf S. Pioneering new indoor temperature standards: the Pakistan
project. Energy Build 1996;23(3):169e74.
[126] Candido C, Lamberts R, de Dear R, Bittencourt L, de Vecchi R. Towards
a Brazilian standard for naturally ventilated buildings: guidelines for
thermal and air movement acceptability. Build Res Inf 2011;39(2):
145e53.
[127] Brager G, Baker L. Occupant satisfaction in mixed-mode buildings. Build Res
Inf 2009;37(4):369e80.
[128] Oseland NA. Predicted and reported thermal sensation in climate chambers,
offices and homes. Energy Build 1995;23(2):105e15.
[129] Karjalainen S. Thermal comfort and use of thermostats in Finnish homes and
offices. Build Environ 2009;44(6):1237e45.
[130] Yun GY, Steemers K, Baker N. Natural ventilation in practice: linking facade
design, thermal performance, occupant perception and control. Build Res Inf
2008;36(6):608e24.
[131] Fanger PO. Thermal comfort. Analysis and applications in environmental
engineering. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press; 1970.
[132] Fanger PO. Assessment of man’s thermal comfort in practice. Br J Ind Med
1973;30(4):313e24.
[133] Brager GS, de Dear RJ. Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a
literature review. Energy Build 1998;27(1):83e96.