Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

A review of factors affecting occupant comfort in multi-unit residential T

buildings
Maedot S. Andargiea,*, Marianne Touchiea,b, William O'Brienc
a
University of Toronto, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, 35 St. George St., Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4, Canada
b
University of Toronto, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 5 King's College Road, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G8, Canada
c
Carleton University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3432 Mackenzie Building, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Traditionally, less focus has been given to comfort evaluations in residential buildings compared to commercial
Occupant comfort buildings. Despite having an increased level of control relative to offices, occupants can still experience health
Multi-unit residence and comfort issues in their residences due to poor environmental conditions which can result in adaptations that
Indoor environment quality may increase energy consumption in buildings. Consequently, there have been more studies which evaluate
Occupant satisfaction
factors that affect occupant comfort and health in residential buildings in recent years. As high-rise multi-unit
residential buildings (MURBs) become more ubiquitous in cities globally, researchers have also started to look at
factors that affect occupants' comfort in MURBs. In this paper, a critical review of studies which investigated
occupant comfort in MURBs in relation to environmental and non-environmental variables that could have a
potential impact on comfort is presented. Various approaches used in assessing occupant comfort are compared,
the factors which are important determinants of occupant comfort in MURBs are presented, and the gaps in the
literature are identified. Findings of this review show that, in addition to indoor environmental conditions,
occupants’ characteristics, building-related characteristics and the outdoor environment can significantly affect
occupant comfort in MURBs. The identified gaps include a limited assessment of the impact of non-thermal
related environmental conditions on comfort and the impact of non-environmental related conditions, as well as
a limited number of studies on health and productivity. Based on these findings, the paper includes re-
commendations on research design and methodologies for future occupant comfort studies in MURBs.

1. Introduction results to multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) can be more chal-

On average, people spend 65% of their time at home which can
significantly increase depending on various demographic factors, such
as age and type of job [1,2]. It is, thus, important to ensure that re-
sidential buildings perform well to promote occupants’ health and
wellbeing. With the improvement of living standards, growing aware-
ness of the impact of indoor environmental conditions on wellbeing as
well as increased value for healthier residences, greater importance is
being given to improving the indoor environment in residences [3].
Consequently, there has been an increase in studies which evaluate
factors that affect occupant comfort and health in residential buildings
in the last few years. However, most of these studies are performed only
on one building type, e.g., single-family houses, or in laboratory set-
tings which results in limited transferability of their findings to other
building types as different buildings have different envelopes and in-
door environment that affect occupants differently [4]. Transferring
lenging due to their compartmentalized interior zones, building height
and control options for occupants, such as operable windows and the
level of control over the HVAC system [5].
MURBs have several distinctive design and control features that
differentiate them from single-family houses with regards to comfort.
MURB dwellings typically have a smaller area of living space and a
lower number of rooms compared to single-family houses which can
negatively affect occupants’ overall satisfaction and cause privacy is-
sues [6]. Due to the dwelling size and other factors, the number of
occupants in MURB dwellings is typically lower than single-family
houses. This decreased level of occupancy in MURB dwellings results in
lower heat gains and a reduced level of interaction with building con-
trol elements thus reducing the impact on occupant comfort compared
to single-family houses [7,8]. Building height is another important
differentiating factor between MURBs and single-family houses as suites
on different levels of a building can have different indoor temperatures

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maedot.andargie@mail.utoronto.ca (M.S. Andargie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106182
Received 12 April 2019; Received in revised form 3 June 2019; Accepted 4 June 2019
Available online 06 June 2019
0360-1323/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Andargie, et al.
due to stack effect [9]. During heating seasons, top floors might over-
heat due to rising warm air, causing thermal discomfort for occupants
on top levels while drafts are an issue for occupants of lower floors due
to infiltrating cold air [9,10]. Rising air, carrying with it contaminants
and odors from lower floors, parking garages, and streets, can also
cause significant indoor air quality (IAQ) issues for upper floor re-
sidents [11]. The opposite can happen during cooling seasons in
buildings with cooling where indoor air moves downwards, causing air
quality issues for occupants on lower levels [12]. Odors and con-
taminants can also easily move between adjacent suites and to common
spaces, such as hallways, when differential air pressures exist which
increases air quality issues in MURBs compared to single-family houses
[13]. While the movement of contaminants through walls, doors,
windows and floors/ceilings can be controlled by making the building
air-tight, it is impossible to completely control IAQ issues in MURBs as
contaminants and odor can be transferred through hallways when oc-
cupants open their hallway doors. Occupants can use natural ventila-
tion, portable air cleaning systems or adjust their direct-to-suite me-
chanical ventilation, if available, to mitigate such IAQ issues in their
units, but they typically have limited or no control of ventilation sys-
tems in common spaces. For MURBs with no direct-to-suite ventilation,
mechanical ventilation rates might be insufficient for suites with a
higher level of contaminant emissions, e.g., smoking in suite, whereas
such IAQ issues are easier to control in single-family housing where
occupants can use both mechanical and natural ventilation without
impacting the airflow in the rest of the building [14]. In addition, the
existence of shared walls in MURBs can have a significant impact on
acoustic comfort and privacy as noise can easily be transmitted through
the shared structural elements [15]. Furthermore, in MURBs with two-
pipe HVAC systems which cannot provide simultaneous heating and
cooling (four-pipe systems), set point temperatures might not be met
during shoulder seasons where heating and cooling needs vary based on
time of the day and suite position in the building, while occupants in
single-family housing can cool and heat as they like [16]. Occupants in
MURBs also have limited control of lighting and temperature in
common spaces, e.g., hallways, which might decrease their overall
comfort compared to single-family houses.
Similarly, design and control features can vary between MURBs and
office/commercial buildings and thus, directly applying research find-
ings about comfort in offices to MURBs can be challenging. The amount
of space available per occupant is much lower in commercial buildings
compared to MURBs which impacts occupants’ visual and acoustic
privacy [17]. Similarly, comfort in commercial buildings is highly im-
pacted by layout (open plan vs closed offices) [18,19]. In addition,
occupants in commercial buildings typically have limited interactions
with their building as well as more restricted control and behavioral
adaptations than in MURBs which can impact their satisfaction and
comfort levels differently [20,21]. For instance, companies in com-
mercial buildings typically have restrictions on clothing levels and give
occupants limited options for regulating thermal conditions through
thermostats and windows, which limit the ability to mitigate thermal
discomfort [21–23]. Office occupants might also have limited control
over the source of pollutants and odor, and ways to mitigate air quality
issues (e.g., no operable windows, the possibility of affecting colleagues
if using portable air filters or opening windows) whereas residents in
MURBs can have partial control over sources of pollutants and more
mitigation options. Similarly, occupants in office/commercial buildings
have limited control over the sources of noise and have more acoustic
privacy issues especially in open-plan offices [19]. Visual comfort is
also a challenge in office buildings where there are restrictions on ad-
justing artificial lighting, natural lighting (adjusting blinds/curtains),
furnishing and layout which result in visual discomfort and privacy
issues [24]. The limited availability of control options in office build-
ings might lead occupants to relax their expectations and adjust their
perceptions of indoor conditions [25,26]. Fig. 1 summarizes the main
differences in indoor environmental factors between MURBs and typical
2
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
single-family and office buildings to show the consequent differences in
comfort conditions.
This paper presents a critical review of studies which investigated
occupant comfort in MURBs in relation to indoor environmental quality
(IEQ) and non-IEQ variables. The main objectives of this paper are to
compare the various methodologies used in assessing occupant comfort,
identify which IEQ and non-IEQ factors are important determinants of
occupant comfort, and identify gaps in the literature. First, the study
approaches used in previous studies are presented followed by a sum-
mary and discussion of the factors that affect occupant comfort in
MURBs. Next, the environmental conditions are ranked based on their
importance for overall comfort in MURBs and the impact of MURB IEQ
on health and productivity is discussed. Finally, conclusion and re-
commendations for future comfort studies in MURBs are provided. For
the purpose of this paper, MURBs are defined as multi-family residences
with two or more floors that have multiple units per floor. The litera-
ture survey focused on journal articles that evaluate comfort in MURBs
by analyzing occupants’ response, predicting comfort using existing or
new comfort models, or both. Thus, studies that evaluate indoor en-
vironmental conditions in MURBs without studying its impact on
comfort are not included. The review focused on measurement- and
survey-based studies. As such, simulation-based studies (such as
[27–30]) are not included in this review. However, it should be noted
that sources which do not meet this criterion have been utilized to
guide the discussion and critically assess the methodologies and results
reported by articles found in the literature survey.
2. Approaches used in literature
This section provides a summary of the different topics and study
approaches used in the literature and discusses the data collection
strategies as they relate to the various objectives of the studies. The
summary is provided in two subsections: the first section focuses on
comfort studies while the second section focuses on studies that include
evaluations of health and productivity of occupants.
2.1. Comfort – types of study and data collection
The literature review showed that there are two main approaches
implemented by studies: those which assess a single comfort factor and
those which assess multiple comfort factors. Fig. 2 summarizes the
differences between these approaches and Fig. 4 presents the number of
studies that used these different approaches and the year of publication.
As shown, the total number of studies for both single-factor and multi-
factor approaches is generally increasing with year.
2.1.1. Single-factor studies
A single-factor study investigates only one of the four main occu-
pant comfort aspects (thermal comfort, visual comfort, acoustic comfort
and IAQ satisfaction). Fig. 3 shows the proportion of single-factor stu-
dies devoted to each of these comfort aspects. It is clear that thermal
comfort is the predominant comfort aspect studied in MURBs while
visual and acoustic comfort are less common in single-factor studies.
One of the main objectives of single-factor analyses is to investigate
the variables that affect a specific aspect of comfort. These variables
include building-related features [31–35], occupant characteristics
[36], IEQ [37–40], and outdoor climate [41]. Another common objec-
tive of single-factor studies is the characterization of acceptable and
preferred indoor environmental ranges for occupant comfort [42–50].
To do this, several of the single-factor thermal comfort studies in-
vestigate the implementation of established thermal comfort standards
and models, such as ASHRAE Standard 55, to different building types,
outdoor climates, and demographics by comparing occupants’ reported
comfort levels to that of comfort levels defined by the standards
[38,40,42,43,45,50,51].
To assess thermal comfort, most single-factor studies use both
M.S. Andargie, et al. Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182

Fig. 1. Differences in comfort factors among MURBs, single-family houses and office/commercial buildings.

subjective data collection methods, such as questionnaires, interviews particular indoor environment and outdoor climate conditions relate to
and diaries, and objective approaches, such as onsite monitoring. This thermal comfort levels, as well as avoid biases that might result from
combination of objective and subjective data helps in assessing how using subjective-only or objective-only approach. Some studies,

3
M.S. Andargie, et al.
Fig. 2. Types of study approaches.
Fig. 3. Classification of single-factor studies.
however, compared subjective and objective data that were collected at
different times which resulted in inconsistencies. For instance, Patiño
et al. [38] conducted onsite monitoring after questionnaires were col-
lected. While their data monitoring results indicated overheating in the
buildings, occupants reported discomfort due to cold temperatures
which might have been the prevalent condition at the time the ques-
tionnaire was administered. The authors also reported that some areas
Fig. 4. Number of studies and study approaches.
4
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
in the units which might have been frequently occupied by occupants
were not monitored, indicating a spatial inconsistency. These and other
data collection gaps, such as questionnaires that do not clearly prompt
occupants to report comfort levels during the monitored period, might
be the underlying reasons for the inconsistent results reported in some
studies.
A few single-factor studies have implemented a subjective-only
approach [34,35] or an objective-only approach [41,52]. Wei et al.
[41], for instance, collected data via onsite monitoring of environ-
mental conditions and they evaluated thermal comfort in naturally
ventilated buildings by inputting measured parameters into adaptive
predicted mean vote (PMV) and predicted percentage dissatisfied (PPD)
models. Several studies, however, have shown that there is a dis-
crepancy between occupants' reported levels of thermal comfort and
levels calculated by adaptive PMV and PPD models in naturally venti-
lated buildings [53–55]. Schaudienst and Vogdt [56] suggest Fanger's
PMV model is also not appropriate for predicting the comfort of dif-
ferent age groups and gender, stressing the need for using both sub-
jective and objective approach when assessing comfort.
The literature survey revealed that there is a lack of studies that use
M.S. Andargie, et al.
laboratory experiments to assess comfort in MURBs. However, labora-
tory experiments are widely utilized for assessing the comfort and
productivity of occupants in office settings [57,58]. Researchers control
different factors that impact comfort, such as temperature, humidity,
daylight and noise levels, to evaluate the effects of these factors on
comfort and productivity. The effects are typically measured through
questionnaires, simulated tasks or through personalized monitoring of
subjects' physiological responses. This approach has its own short-
comings. Biases can occur as participants are typically exposed to un-
familiar settings, equipment, and personnel which can have different
impacts on occupants’ perceptions and behavior compared to real en-
vironments [58]. Participants are also aware that they are being ob-
served and hence they might alter their responses (“Hawthorne effect”)
[59]. Despite these biases and the high cost related to building and
operating laboratories, such experiments have revealed important in-
sights on comfort and productivity of occupants in office settings [60].
This approach also bridges the gaps mentioned previously regarding
data collection approaches implemented in field studies as researchers
are able to control the environmental setting in a laboratory which is
not possible in the field. In addition, it provides the opportunity to
objectively measure comfort through more invasive techniques (e.g.,
using EEG caps to measure brain waves, tracking hormone levels
through blood tests and using ingestible sensor pills to measure core
body temperature) rather than completely relying on subjective ques-
tionnaires or comfort standards [58,61,62]. The current review found
one study by Jeon et al. [37] which implemented a laboratory-based
approach to explore comfort in MURBs. The authors simulated indoor
residential noise types in a laboratory to predict how acoustic comfort
varies for different sources types and levels. Even though there is some
progress in laboratory experiments for residential settings [63,64],
there is still a lack of such studies, which limits advances in under-
standing comfort in residential spaces, specifically in MURBs.
2.1.2. Multi-factor studies
The second type of approach used in the literature is a multi-factor
approach where more than one occupant comfort and satisfaction as-
pect are assessed concurrently. The literature survey revealed that
multi-factor studies use three main approaches as presented in Fig. 2.
Studies that are classified under the independent multi-factor approach
assess two or more of the occupant comfort aspects separately [65–74].
Similar to the single-factor approach, the aim of these studies is to
evaluate how different predictors impact comfort. The ranking-based
multi-factor category, on the other hand, represents studies that go
beyond evaluating two or more comfort aspects separately by evalu-
ating the importance of each comfort aspect for overall comfort. Most of
these studies rank the different comfort aspects to show which should
be given priority when attempting to optimize occupant comfort in
MURBs. The last multi-factor study type represents an interrelation
approach, which is relatively a new type of analysis used to evaluate the
impact perceived IAQ, thermal, visual and acoustic comfort levels can
have on one another.
Multi-factor studies are superior to single-factor studies as they
allow researchers to discover factors that potentially impact a certain
comfort aspect where these aspects have traditionally been considered
unrelated (e.g., assessing the impact IAQ has on visual comfort [75]).
This allows for a holistic investigation of variables that affect each
comfort aspect. Results of the literature survey revealed that there is a
dearth of studies dedicated to investigating the relationship among
these comfort aspects. Therefore, studies that commit parts of their
analyses for such cross-examination are classified under this type even
though their main goal is not to investigate interrelations between
comfort aspects. Fig. 4 shows that there are only four such studies: Chan
et al. [76], Dahlan et al. [77], Dahlan [78] and Gou et al. [51]. Chan
et al. [76] and Gou et al. [51] evaluated the relationship between IAQ
satisfaction and thermal comfort while Dahlan et al. [77] and Dahlan
[78] assessed the relationship between visual and thermal comfort as
5
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
well as acoustic and thermal comfort, respectively.
Unlike single-factor studies, the literature survey revealed that more
than half of the multi-factor studies use subjective questionnaires as the
only data collection method. Results of these studies can be prone to
response biases, especially if questionnaires are not designed carefully
[79]. Some multi-factor studies have implemented measures to mini-
mize such biases. Bonde and Ramirez [66], for instance, designed their
questionnaires after initial interviews with occupants which enabled
them to better structure their questionnaire. Similarly, Xue et al. [80]
used a pilot study to test their questionnaire. The authors also used
open-ended questions in their questionnaires which helped reveal im-
portant insights on occupant comfort that researchers might have
missed. Ho et al. [81] asked 35 professionals to rank factors that impact
the performance of MURBs. Similarly, Cho et al. [82] carried out a
survey on “experts” to complement the survey of occupants. The experts
were university professors, graduate students, researchers, field experts
and administrators that had relevant experience on indoor environ-
mental quality. Both experts and occupants were asked to rate the
importance of different indoor conditions for overall comfort. The study
reports that experts and occupants rated these indoor conditions dif-
ferently which shows that results from questionnaires should be treated
with caution.
In addition, some multi-factor studies that use objective data col-
lection methods tend to focus their environmental measurements on
thermal and IAQ conditions only. Du et al. [68], for example, used both
subjective reports and objective data obtained by monitoring environ-
mental conditions to assess thermal comfort and IAQ satisfaction, while
their visual and acoustic comfort analysis were based on subjective
reports only. Similarly, Silva et al. [73] monitored thermal and IAQ
conditions and used both objective and subjective data to guide their
analysis of thermal comfort and perceived IAQ. But their analysis of
acoustic comfort was solely based on subjective data as they did not
monitor acoustic conditions. This indicates that, even with multi-factor
studies, thermal comfort and IAQ satisfaction are given more focus than
comfort with visual and acoustic conditions. Monitoring of visual and
acoustic conditions is given less focus partly due to the difficulties as-
sociated with the measurements. Visual conditions can change con-
tinuously and are typically uneven within a space and thus highly de-
pendent on the position in a room [83,84]. In residences, visual
monitoring and estimation of visual comfort can be very challenging as
occupants are free to relocate while the equipment used is normally
fixed to one place. Similarly, noise can be very dynamic and occupants
are typically exposed to a variety of noise types concurrently [85]. The
type of noise, its meaning, and importance to occupants are very im-
portant factors that affect acoustic comfort [86]. Isolating such factors
is, however, hard to achieve without recording sound which is un-
common in occupied residences probably due to privacy issues.
2.2. Health and productivity
Several studies in offices and other commercial settings have shown
that the indoor environment affects occupants' performance [87–90].
With a growing number of persons working from home, evaluating the
impact IEQ in residential buildings has on productivity is important
[91,92]. IEQ in residential buildings can also affect the productivity of
occupants' who do not work from home. Some studies have found that
poor indoor environmental conditions can impact sleep quality [93,94]
which in turn can affect occupants' next-day performance at work. The
literature survey revealed that only two studies evaluated productivity
in MURBs [39,95]. Jamaludin et al. [95] used questionnaires to get
feedback regarding the impact of IEQ and other aspects on occupant
productivity in residences. Strøm‐Tejsen et al. [39], in addition to
subjective questionnaires, used wrist watch actigraphs and logical
thinking tests to objectively evaluate the effects of ventilation and air
quality on occupants’ sleep quality as well as their perceived next-day
performance.
M.S. Andargie, et al. Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182

In addition to productivity, a few studies have also evaluated the Table 1

relationship between indoor conditions in MURBs and occupants' health Neutral temperatures reported in literature.
[31,32,68,70,73,81,96]. Studies performed in laboratory chambers and Study Country Season Neutral temperature (oC)
offices or other commercial settings have shown that indoor conditions
can have important impacts on occupants’ health [97]. These health Luo et al. [47] China Winter 20.7a (no control)
18.1a (high control)
impacts can be temporary sick building symptoms where occupants
Wang et al. [50] China Winter 21.5a
experience the symptoms only when in buildings with poor IEQ or long Wang et al. [40] China Winter 20.4c (before heating season)
term illnesses, such as asthma and other respiratory diseases [98]. 25.1c (during heating season)
Studies surveyed in this paper use reported sick building syndrome Cheng et al. [43] Taiwan Summer 25.4a
symptoms on questionnaires or interviews to evaluate the relationship Indraganti [45] India Summer 29.23b
Rajan et al. [48] Japan All 22.8c
between IEQ and occupant health [31,32,99]. There are, however, a
lack of studies that evaluate the impact of indoor environmental con- a
operative temperature.
ditions in MURBs on long term illnesses which might be due to the b
globe temperature.
extended period of data collection required to relate symptoms to c
air temperature.
buildings.
having a neutral thermal sensation [40,101]. De Dear and Brager [25]
3. Variables affecting occupant comfort in MURBs suggest that, due to occupants’ adaptations to indoor conditions, neu-
tral temperatures are strongly dependent on and tend to be closer in
This section discusses the results of the surveyed studies to identify value to the mean indoor temperatures. However, results of the litera-
the different parameters that affect occupant comfort in buildings. The ture survey show that outdoor climate might play a more significant
main parameters are grouped under IEQ, outdoor environment, occu- role. For instance, Wang et al. [40] found higher neutral temperatures
pant characteristics and building characteristics. While this section during the heating season compared to before the heating season even
treats these parameters separately, it is important to acknowledge that though the indoor temperatures during the two periods were compar-
the factors are highly correlated. For instance, outdoor climate affects able (20.6 ± 2.09 °C before heating season and 21.6 ± 2.03 °C during
indoor temperature set points and occupants’ thermal preferences [76]. heating season) which suggests that indoor temperature is not the only
Similarly, building-related characteristics, such as the type of ventila- factor that impacts neutral temperature. Table 1 shows that neutral
tion, can affect indoor temperature and air quality levels [100]. The temperatures reported in the surveyed studies are higher during the
section also discusses the results of ranking based multi-factor studies as summer compared to winter. Neutral temperatures also vary based on
well as studies that evaluated occupant health and productivity in the availability of control over thermal conditions [47].
MURBs. While the neutral temperature is typically used to express optimal
temperature for thermal comfort, occupants, however, might not al-
3.1. IEQ ways prefer to feel neutral [102]. During cold seasons, occupants tend
to prefer warmer than neutral thermal sensation while the opposite is
Results of the studies that assess the impact of one or more indoor observed for warm seasons [25]. Results of the current review also
environmental factors on comfort are summarized in the following confirm this. Wang et al. [50] reported a slightly higher preferred
sections. temperature (21.9 °C) than the neutral temperature (21.5 °C), while
Cheng et al. [43] reported a lower preferred temperature (24.8 °C) than
3.1.1. Indoor thermal conditions the neutral temperature (25.4 °C). Similarly, the neutral temperatures
As mentioned in section 2.1.1., thermal comfort is the most widely reported by Wang et al. [40] were outside of the preferred temperature
studied comfort aspect. As such, most studies have assessed the re- ranges for “before heating” (23.0–24.0 °C) and “during heating”
lationship between thermal comfort and indoor thermal conditions such (21.5–24.0 °C). Indraganti [45] also reported that occupants preferred a
as temperature, relative humidity and air speed. Many studies have cooler temperature than the neutral temperature. In addition, several
characterized the range of acceptable temperature for optimal thermal studies indicate a deviation of occupants' reported temperature ranges
comfort as shown in Fig. 5, and predicted temperatures where thermal for comfort from that predicted by standard models, such as ASHRAE's
neutrality would occur as presented in Table 1. Neutral temperature is thermal comfort model [38,40,42,45,51]. This indicates that thermal
the temperature at which occupants feel neither warm nor cold, thus comfort is dependent on factors other than temperature. Clothing level

Fig. 5. Acceptable temperature ranges. a = air temperature, b = operative temperature, c

= globe temperature, * = minimum indoor temperature used as lower
bound.

6
M.S. Andargie, et al.
is a key factor that affects thermal comfort and thermal acceptability,
and one that is particularly important in a residential environment
where people have control of both temperature and clothing level
[38,45,103]. Clothing level as low as 0.1 clo is reported in the surveyed
studies which is much lower than the 0.4 clo typically reported as a
minimum in office buildings [23,103–105]. Occupants also have
greater freedom to alter their clothing levels based on their metabolic
activity in their residences. Indraganti [45] reports that occupants ad-
justed their clothing based on their metabolic activities, which varies
throughout the day. Such clothing variation based on time of the day is,
however, rarely observed in office buildings. Though occupants' deci-
sion on clothing level is guided by previous experience in their office
spaces, once in their offices, occupants seldom adjust their clothing
levels due to limited change in metabolic activity and ethical con-
siderations [104,105].
Air speed is also an important determinant of thermal comfort
[51,77,78,106] while studies reported contradictory results regarding
the importance of humidity to thermal comfort [50,80]. Results of in-
terrelation studies have shown that non-thermal parameters can also
affect thermal comfort. Gou et al. [51] and Chan et al. [76] reported a
significant relationship between perceived IAQ and thermal comfort.
Dahlan et al. [77] and Dahlan [78] reported that glare influences
thermal comfort. This can be because occupants can easily sense dis-
comfort when there are more than one IEQ factors outside of the
comfort range, thus their dissatisfaction with IAQ and visual conditions
can increase their overall discomfort with thermal and other conditions
[73]. Occupants' behavioral and physical adaptations or expectations,
as well as other personal factors, and indoor and outdoor conditions can
also impact comfort levels [25]. For instance, as shown in Table 1, Luo
et al. [47] reported that the neutral temperature of occupants who had
control over the heating system was 2.6 °C lower than those who did not
have control. Similarly, occupants’ preferred temperatures can also
depend on whether or not they are responsible for their energy bills
[107].
3.1.2. IAQ
Several studies show that indoor air quality can considerably impact
occupants' comfort, health, and productivity, signifying the need for
research on the topic [75,108–110]. A review of the literature, how-
ever, shows that there is a lack of in-depth analysis regarding IAQ and
its impact on comfort in MURBs. Many studies simply evaluate the level
of occupant satisfaction with air quality without attempting to under-
stand reasons for the varying levels of satisfaction. Thus, only a few
studies assess how IAQ satisfaction varies with environmental para-
meters. Földváry et al. [32] determined air exchange rates using mea-
sured CO2 concentrations. They found a positive correlation between
the air exchange rate and acceptability of IAQ. Similarly, Strøm‐Tejsen
et al. [39] and Du et al. [68] found an inverse relationship between
occupant satisfaction with IAQ and indoor CO2 levels. However, other
studies found that reported IAQ satisfaction levels did not match
measured CO2 levels, which may be due to occupants’ behavioral and
physical adaptations or other factors discussed in section 3.1.1
[33,111]. Studies also used other IAQ indicators to assess the re-
lationship with occupant satisfaction. Du et al. [68] found that occu-
pants who reported dissatisfaction with IAQ had higher levels of PM2.5,
PM10, formaldehyde, NO2, radon, fungi, and relative humidity in their
residences than those who reported satisfaction with IAQ. Similarly,
Földváry et al. [32] reported higher acceptance levels of IAQ when
formaldehyde and TVOC levels were lower.
In addition to the aforementioned IAQ indicators, several other
factors impacted occupants' satisfaction with IAQ. Studies that relied on
subjective reporting for causes of dissatisfaction with IAQ found that
odor, stuffy air, and dust affect IAQ satisfaction levels [80,112]. Similar
to thermal comfort, parameters that are not direct indicators of air
quality levels also impacted occupants' satisfaction with IAQ. Brown
and Gorgolewski [67] reported that occupants with higher perceived
7
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
control have higher perceived IAQ. Chan et al. [76] found a negative
correlation between temperature levels and IAQ satisfaction. Similarly,
Gou et al. [51] found that satisfaction with IAQ has a positive re-
lationship with thermal comfort and air velocity. As mentioned pre-
vious, this may be due to occupants’ ability to easily sense discomfort
when both IAQ and thermal conditions are outside the comfort range.
3.1.3. Indoor visual conditions
Research shows that there are six main parameters that impact in-
door visual comfort: glare, outside view, daylight, lighting level, uni-
formity of lighting, and privacy [83,113,114]. The surveyed studies
report most of these parameters are important for visual comfort in
MURBs except glare. For instance, Xue et al. [80] assessed the im-
portance of these parameters for visual comfort in MURBs and found
that daylight, outside view, uniformity and lighting level contributed to
visual satisfaction while glare did not have a significant correlation
with reported visual comfort. The decreased importance of glare for
visual comfort reported in these studies shows that occupants' ability to
relocate or control blind positions easily in residential environments
results in lower dissatisfaction levels than commercial settings where
occupants' ability to adjust environmental conditions are limited
[20,21,115]. It is, however, important to mention that data collection
and sampling gaps might have had a significant contribution. Chan
et al. [76], for example, monitored glare conditions for only 1 h in each
occupants' unit while occupants' might have been reporting comfort
levels over a longer period of time. In addition, they kept windows open
during their sampling periods which might have resulted in higher le-
vels of glare than typically experienced by occupants. Similarly, Gou
et al. [51] reported that occupants’ acceptance of lighting was sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with glare from both natural light
and electric lights, which might be due to the low levels of glare re-
ported by occupants in general as well as the small sample size (six
subjects) used in the study.
Studies also show that occupants are satisfied with illuminance le-
vels lower than recommended for various areas such as the bedroom
and family room [116,117]. Lai et al. [103] report that, while accep-
tance of lighting levels increase when the illuminance level increases
from 10 lux to 50 lux, their acceptance level remains steady after 50
lux, suggesting that levels as low as 50 lux is satisfactory for the oc-
cupants. Chan et al. [76] also reported that students were satisfied with
illuminance levels measured at 181 ± 157 lux in their dormitories
even though this is lower than recommended lighting levels of 300–500
lux for activities such as studying [118]. In addition to occupants'
ability to control lighting levels, their acceptance of low illuminance
levels might be due to their expectations. Dahlan et al. [77] and Dahlan
[78] indicate that occupants’ similar visual comfort vote for daylight
factor ranging from below 0.8% to above 3.0% is due to their ex-
pectations and adaptations to the lighting conditions.
3.1.4. Indoor acoustic conditions
Unlike visual conditions, occupants in MURBs have minimum con-
trol over indoor noise levels and sources. The literature survey shows
noise sources originating from the occupants' buildings, referred to in
this paper as indoor noise sources, are the main sources of acoustic
discomfort for occupants in MURBs. Noise from neighbors and drainage
systems are the two main indoor sources identified in the literature.
Jeon et al. [37] report that floor impact noise generated from activities,
such as children's jumping and running, was the main source of re-
ported acoustic dissatisfaction followed by airborne noise, such as
people talking and playing music, whereas drainage noise has the least
impact on overall noise dissatisfaction levels. Other studies also report
noise from neighbors as the main source of acoustic discomfort
[80,103]. This might be due to poor acoustic insulation, construction
type (e.g., single panel walls) and high-density development where
neighboring units might have windows within close proximity resulting
in noise propagation through windows as well as shared walls and
M.S. Andargie, et al.
floors [96,119].
When considering noise levels, the literature survey shows con-
flicting results. Lai et al. [103] reported a significant drop in noise ac-
ceptance as the noise level exceeds 70 dBA. Jeon et al. [37] on the other
had reported a much lower threshold. For instance, they reported an
80% dissatisfaction for drainage and airborne noise levels at 42 dBA
and 43 dBA, respectively. In contrast, Dahlan et al. [77] reported no
significant change in acoustic discomfort despite variations in noise
levels. The type of noise sources studied in these papers might explain
the inconsistent results. Lai et al. [103], for instance, reports that oc-
cupants are mostly annoyed by outdoor noise sources while Jeon et al.
[37] measured indoor noise sources. The lower threshold for discomfort
reported in the later study suggests that occupants can endure indoor
noise sources less than outdoor ones. This inconsistency might also be
due to other factors that impact acoustic comfort. Dahlan [78], for in-
stance, reports that acoustic comfort is impacted by thermal conditions,
where discomfort increases with temperature. Other factors such as
occupants' adaptation levels can also play an important role. Jeon et al.
[37] conducted their study in a laboratory where they exposed occu-
pants to “artificial” noises. Despite their efforts to mimic noises pro-
duced in residences, the unfamiliar setting might have contributed to
occupants' increased dissatisfaction at lower noise levels. Lai et al.
[103] and Dahlan et al. [77], on the other hand, performed their studies
in occupants’ residences where occupants are likely familiar and
adapted to their environment, and noise levels specifically, which might
have resulted in decreased discomfort.
Studies that included acoustic monitoring used sound pressure le-
vels to evaluate acoustic comfort. This is a significant limitation be-
cause acoustic comfort is also affected by the frequency of noise. The
sensitivity of the human ear to noise varies with frequency [86,120].
Thus the perceived loudness and noisiness will vary for noise sources
with similar sound pressure level but different frequency. While the A-
weighted sound pressure level used in the surveyed studies is a good
way to measure such loudness as perceived by the human ear, it has
been proven to reduce the effects of low-frequency sounds, especially
those below 100 Hz [121,122]. It also minimizes the effect of pressure
levels above 60 dB [122]. This makes it unsuitable for low-frequency
noise sources, such as noise from HVAC systems and trucks, which
occupants are exposed to regularly in their residences.
3.2. Impact of outdoor environment
Studies have shown that occupants often tend to correlate their
indoor comfort with outdoor conditions rather than indoor levels [123].
Outdoor climate is one of the key factors that affect occupants' per-
ception of thermal comfort. Studies show that long exposures to a
certain outdoor climate lead to physiological adaptations affecting oc-
cupants' preferences and responses to their indoor thermal conditions.
Along with other physiological, behavioral and psychological adapta-
tions, this adaptation to climate has led to the development of the
adaptive thermal comfort model [124]. The literature on MURBs also
shows that outdoor conditions can significantly affect occupants’ com-
fort in their residences. In addition to outdoor climate/weather, out-
door infrastructure is also identified as an important outdoor parameter
that impacts occupant comfort indoors.
3.2.1. Outdoor climate
For naturally ventilated MURBs, outdoor climate can directly im-
pact indoor thermal conditions. Thus, occupants' comfort levels can
vary with season and time of day [42,45,77]. In warm climates, occu-
pants experience discomfort due to high temperature during afternoons
compared to mornings and evenings [77,78]. Similarly, occupants feel
warmer and prefer cooler conditions during months with high outdoor
temperatures compared to colder months [76]. This trend was also
observed for occupants in MURBs equipped with mechanical cooling/
heating that have higher neutral temperatures in the summer compared
8
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
to winter. Li et al. [46], however, found that occupants in “severe cold”
climates require a higher temperature for comfort compared to occu-
pants in “cold” climate where the outdoor temperature was relatively
higher. This variation can be due to occupants' adaptations and per-
sonal preferences. Studies have shown that, when the temperature is
too cold or too warm, occupants rely less on clothing and more on other
forms of adaptations, such as changing temperature set points, to keep
comfortable [45,125,126]. Occupants’ socioeconomic status can also
impact indoor temperature levels where occupants use less heating/
cooling to save on energy bills which results in different adaptations
and neutral temperatures to similar outdoor conditions [36,127].
3.2.2. Surrounding infrastructure
Infrastructure surrounding a building can have a significant impact
on occupants’ acoustic comfort. Some studies reported these sources as
more important for overall acoustic comfort than indoor noise sources.
Traffic and construction noise are the two main external sources of
acoustic discomfort reported in the literature. Traffic noise is reported
as less important, especially for high-rise MURBs, as the noise level
decreases with height. On the other hand, construction noise, such as
renovation of neighboring buildings, can have a higher importance as
the noise source can be relatively closer to occupants. The impact these
outdoor noise sources have on acoustic comfort is however reduced for
dwelling units with balconies [77,128]. Other reported sources of
acoustic discomfort include children playing outside, noise from in-
dustry and general neighborhood activities. However, the reviewed
studies do not investigate the level of importance of these sources to
acoustic comfort.
Surrounding infrastructure can also affect occupants' visual comfort
and overall satisfaction in MURBs. Although highly subjective, outside
view is identified as one of the important parameters for visual comfort
[65,114]. Liu et al. [129] reported that the surrounding of buildings,
such as the view out the window and adequate landscaping area, can
affect occupants' overall satisfaction. Xue et al. [80] also report that
view and external obstruction due to dense residential development can
significantly affect visual comfort as they have a direct impact on the
uniformity and level of lighting available indoors. The authors also
report that reflected glare from surrounding buildings is a source of
discomfort. In addition, proximity to infrastructure, such as public
transport, is also reported to have a significant impact on occupants’
overall satisfaction.
3.3. Impact of occupant characteristics
Several studies assessed the impacts of occupant related character-
istics on comfort levels. The studied characteristics include age, gender,
socioeconomic background, marital status, ownership, lifestyle and
health, relationship with neighbors, job, energy saving awareness, pride
in residence, years occupying residence and years lived in the countries
the studies were conducted. While some studies reported no relation-
ship between occupants’ characteristics and comfort [37,42,44], the
results of those that found significant relationships are discussed in the
following sections.
3.3.1. Age
Although each study uses a different classification of age, most
studies surveyed adults (18–59) and seniors (above 60) and compar-
isons are done within these age groups. The literature presents con-
flicting results regarding the impact of age on occupant comfort. Lee
et al. [128], Xue et al. [35], Zalejska-Jonsson & Wilhelmsson [112] and
Indraganti & Rao [36] report that older occupants are more comfortable
with indoor conditions in their residences and exhibit a higher accep-
tance rate compared to younger residents. This might be due to older
occupants using adaptive behaviors, such as changing clothing level,
more frequently than younger occupants to adapt to uncomfortable
indoor conditions, or their reluctance to report discomfort compared to
M.S. Andargie, et al.
younger occupants [44]. Zalejska-Jonsson [130], however, reported
that older occupants are less satisfied with their building quality which
might be due to their higher sensitivity to environmental changes.
Hwang & Chen [44] report that older occupants are more sensitive to
temperature drops and have a narrower thermal comfort range com-
pared to younger occupants. Older occupants might also have limited
control over indoor conditions, for example, due to finding control
equipment complicated, which can result in higher sensitivity to indoor
conditions and higher dissatisfaction as a result [36,130].
3.3.2. Gender
Variations in comfort levels due to gender differences are mainly
observed for thermal comfort levels. Female occupants have higher
neutral temperatures than men and tend to wear more clothing due to
their preference for warmer temperatures [50,73]. In addition to
clothing adaptation, physiological and psychological adaptations can
explain the observed differences [131]. The opportunity to adapt to hot
weather through perspiration is lower for women due to a lower sweat
rate compared to men which can significantly affect their thermal
comfort levels [132]. Differences in the time spent in the residences can
also result in adaptation differences. For example, Indraganti & Rao
[36] and Zalejska-Jonsson [130] found that women are more tolerant
and satisfied with the indoor environment in their residences which
might be because surveyed female occupants spent more time in their
residences compared to their male counterparts resulting in a higher
level of adaptation. The difference in comfort levels can also be due to
psychological and cultural factors that affect the levels of thermal
control between the genders [133]. Karjalainen [133], for instance,
reports that males use thermostats more often than females and have a
better knowledge of HVAC systems which results in increased perceived
control and, thus, thermal comfort.
3.3.3. Relationship with neighbors
Comfort studies in commercial settings have shown that occupants'
personal relationships, for example, with their coworkers and super-
visors, are important determinants of their comfort with their indoor
environment [134,135]. Studies, however, give very little consideration
to the importance of such personal relations when evaluating comfort in
residential buildings. The present literature survey revealed that only
two studies assessed the impact that occupants' relationship and atti-
tude towards their neighbors have on their comfort levels. Park et al.
[136] used surveys that asked occupants' closeness with neighbors, the
frequency of visits and gift exchanges to assess the impact that occu-
pants' attitude towards their neighbors might have on their acoustic
comfort levels. The authors found that attitude towards neighbors im-
pacts the level of coping strategies used to mitigate acoustic discomfort
caused by noise from neighbors. Similarly, Lee et al. [128] reported that
the relationship with neighbors was important for overall environ-
mental satisfaction. The authors found that occupants’ environmental
satisfaction is positively correlated with satisfaction levels with their
neighbors.
3.3.4. Ownership and economic status
The literature suggests that ownership and economic status can
influence occupants’ comfort with indoor environmental conditions.
Indraganti & Rao [36] found that occupants from lower economic
groups have higher acceptance and higher temperature range for
comfort compared to those from a higher economic group. Lee et al.
[128] also reported a similar relationship between income level and
acoustic satisfaction. Contrarily, Lai & Yik [127] report that occupants
from lower economic groups are less satisfied with their indoor en-
vironment. Occupants from low economic groups tend to use natural
ventilation to mitigate IAQ issues and thermal discomfort due to their
financial inability to afford space conditioning which can lead to lower
satisfaction levels with acoustic conditions as opening doors and win-
dows can increase external noise levels. Their inability to make
9
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
improvements to their indoor conditions can, thus, impact their comfort
levels. Similarly, ownership status also influences occupant comfort.
Studies report that owners are more satisfied with their indoor en-
vironment and exhibit a higher acceptance level [36,72,137]. Occu-
pants renting their units tend to report lower comfort levels which
might be due to the level of control they have over indoor conditions
[137].
3.3.5. Other characteristics
In addition to the occupant characteristics discussed in previous
sections, the surveyed studies also reported significant relationships
between comfort and other occupant characteristics. These include
marital status, lifestyle and health, energy saving awareness and pride
in residence. Mental stress can increase occupants’ sensitivity to
acoustic conditions [80]. Similarly, smokers tend to have higher dis-
satisfaction and sensitivity to indoor conditions [112]. Time spent in
apartment, awareness about energy use and maintenance, as well as
pride in residential buildings also have positive impacts on occupant
comfort levels. Some studies also assessed the impacts of job, time lived
in residence, and time lived in country on occupant comfort in MURBs
but did not find significant relationships [37,42].
3.4. Impact of building characteristics
The literature shows that several building-related factors affect oc-
cupant comfort in MURBs. The main factors are summarized in the
following sections.
3.4.1. Type of buildings
The literature indicates that occupant comfort with thermal and IAQ
conditions are different for mechanically conditioned and non-condi-
tioned buildings. Occupants in mechanically conditioned buildings
show a higher level of comfort and satisfaction with thermal conditions
than those living in non-conditioned MURBs. Studies also report dif-
ferent thermal preferences for occupants in the two types of buildings.
Becker & Paciuk [42] report that 90% of occupant satisfaction is
achieved in conditioned buildings at 2 °C higher in the summer and 3 °C
lower in the winter compared to the temperatures in non-conditioned
buildings. Cheng et al. [43] also reported that the acceptable tem-
perature range for non-conditioned buildings is wider than in condi-
tioned buildings. Similarly, satisfaction with IAQ conditions varies for
the two types of buildings. Occupants in mechanically ventilated
buildings tend to report higher satisfaction with IAQ than those living
in naturally ventilated buildings which is likely because of a higher
level of pollutants due to lack of proper ventilation [68,74]. Mechanical
ventilation systems equipped with filtration units also perform better
than natural ventilation in areas where the outdoor air is highly pol-
luted [100].
Some studies also assessed the difference in occupant comfort be-
tween low-energy and conventional MURBs. A few studies report that
occupants in low-energy MURBs are less satisfied with thermal condi-
tions and natural lighting possibly due to lack of control over the
conditions, such as the inability to control high levels of glare from
relatively large windows designed to provide better view and daylight,
and difficulty in understanding thermal control system
[66,67,130,137]. Most other studies, however, report that occupants in
low-energy MURBs are more satisfied with thermal conditions, IAQ,
artificial lighting and acoustic conditions than those in conventional
MURBs [66,67]. This might, however, be due to the availability of
control in the studied buildings. Brown & Gorgolewski [67], for in-
stance, indicate that the reason for occupants’ high rating of IAQ in low-
energy buildings was that they were able to open windows and balcony
doors for ventilation even when their mechanical ventilation was not
functioning properly or they do not know how to operate their system.
Similarly, Bonde & Ramirez [66] point out that occupants in a low-
energy MURB reported their thermostats were easier to find and use
M.S. Andargie, et al.
than those in a conventional MURB which might be a reason for the
observed higher satisfaction levels.
3.4.2. Window area
Windows are one of the most important architectural features for
occupant comfort in buildings. The type and area of windows in a
building can significantly affect thermal, visual and acoustic comfort as
well as IAQ satisfaction [102,138,139]. Findings of the current litera-
ture survey show that window area is an important determinant of
occupant comfort in MURBs [140]. The reported direction of the re-
lationship between comfort and window size is different for different
comfort metrics. Occupants in MURBs with small windows reported
decreased levels of visual comfort due to insufficient daylight [35,80].
Smaller windows were also reported unsatisfactory for air quality in
MURBs [95]. On the other hand, MURBs with highly glazed façades can
cause thermal discomfort as well as privacy issues [65]. Even though
the comfort level provided by different sized windows depends on other
factors, such as the climate, orientation and performance of the glazing,
these findings indicate that various comfort aspects should be con-
sidered when optimizing window area [65,141,142]. Studies indicate
that window areas that are too small can negatively impact occupant
comfort due to decreased daylight penetration and outside view,
whereas windows that are too large may result in thermal discomfort
due to higher heat gain and enhanced radiant heat transfer and visual
discomfort due to high glare levels and privacy issues [141,143]. The
findings also have important implications on energy use as un-
comfortable occupants will likely implement different forms of adap-
tation, such as adjusting thermostats and increased use of artificial
lighting, which can increase the energy consumption of their buildings.
With an increasing trend in highly glazed MURBs in cities, such as the
examples shown in Fig. 6, these findings suggest the importance of
considering all aspects of occupant comfort when optimizing window
design.
3.4.3. Other building characteristics
The literature also shows that other building-related characteristics
affect occupant comfort. Floor level is reported to have a significant
impact on occupant comfort where occupants on higher floors report
higher comfort and acceptability of indoor conditions compared to
Fig. 6. An eighty-storey (left) and a fifty-storey (right) MURB in Toronto, Canada.
10
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
lower floors [34,95,128]. Available shading, such as roof overhangs,
reduce glare and overheating resulting in higher comfort levels [35,77].
In addition, occupants in units with balconies are generally more sa-
tisfied with thermal and acoustic conditions than those in units without
balconies [77,128]. Balconies can, however, result in lower satisfaction
with natural lighting as occupants with balconies might regularly use
internal shading for privacy reasons [35].
3.5. Ranking importance of IEQ factors
Several studies used survey responses to identify which IEQ factor is
the most important for overall occupant comfort and satisfaction in
MURBs. The findings of these studies are summarized in Fig. 7. Most
studies report thermal conditions and air quality as the two most im-
portant factors for occupants' overall comfort. While this is in line with
most other comfort studies performed in buildings other than MURBs
[144–146], our findings suggest that identifying the most important
environmental condition is not always direct as it depends on several
factors. For instance, Dahlan [78] reports that occupants gave the
lowest importance to visual conditions because they were able to con-
trol glare and lighting levels easily than other environmental condi-
tions. Similarly, Zalejska-Jonsson & Wilhelmsson [112] report that
importance of environmental conditions depends on the occurrence of
IEQ issues, occupants’ characteristics and the characteristics of the
building, such as the age of the building. This suggests that designers
and building managers should look at the occupants as well as the
building characteristics when deciding which comfort aspect to prior-
itize.
3.6. Health and productivity
Few studies analyzed the relationship between IEQ and MURB oc-
cupants' health and productivity. Wong et al. [96] reported that sick
building syndrome, nose and head discomfort specifically, are the most
significant determinants of occupants' overall satisfaction with en-
vironmental conditions in their residences. Studies identify age, gender,
time spent in the residence, poor air quality, acoustic and thermal
conditions as the most important predictors of these sick building
symptoms [31,32,99]. In addition to physical symptoms, indoor
M.S. Andargie, et al.
Fig. 7. Most important indoor environmental conditions to overall comfort in MURBs, ranked by studies involving at least three of the four forms of IEQ. (a = visual
comfort not included in assessment, b = IAQ not included in assessment).
environmental conditions were related to occupants' emotional stress
and sleep hours [31,65]. Haverinen-Shaughnessy et al. [147] report
that building-related symptoms affected occupants' missed work and
school days which indicates that IEQ issues in residences indirectly
affect occupants' productivity in their workplaces. Similarly,
Strøm‐Tejsen et al. [39] found improvement in occupants' performance
in a logical thinking test when indoor air quality in their residences was
improved. These studies, however, focus on the effect of IEQ in MURBs
on occupants' productivity in their workplaces. The study by Jamaludin
et al. [95] attempts to evaluate how IEQ affects occupants who work
from their residences. Their study focuses on assessing the impact of
environmental conditions on students' productivity in their dormitories.
Their findings suggest that air quality, thermal, visual and acoustic
conditions have strong correlations with productivity levels. In addi-
tion, they report that control over noise levels has a significant corre-
lation with the students' productivity. These results indicate that, de-
spite the higher level of control in MURBs compared to offices and other
commercial spaces, environmental conditions in MURBs can impact,
not only occupants’ performance at their workplaces but also their
productivity in their residences if they work from home. It is, thus,
important to include productivity assessments in future work to better
understand its relationship with IEQ and non-IEQ related factors in
MURBs.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
This paper summarized the factors that affect occupant comfort in
MURBs. The review of the literature showed occupant comfort is af-
fected by various indoor environmental conditions as well as outdoor
conditions, building characteristics and occupant-related character-
istics. Among the indoor conditions, thermal conditions and IAQ are
identified as the most important factors for overall comfort in MURBs.
The review also shows that indoor environmental conditions can affect
occupant health as well as their productivity in their homes or their
workplaces. Findings, however, indicate that the exact relationship
between occupant comfort and the determining factors is complex and
requires more research. Understanding this relationship is an important
step in providing indoor conditions for optimal comfort.
To guide future studies, it is important to highlight the important
gaps in the literature. While the number of studies evaluating occupant
comfort in MURBs has been increasing in the last years, many of the
single-aspect studies are focused on thermal comfort while visual
comfort, acoustic comfort and satisfaction with indoor air quality are
underexplored. There is also a lack of studies that do a comprehensive
exploratory study on what impacts comfort in MURBs (including all IEQ
and non-IEQ factors). While multi-aspect studies try to close this gap,
most lack rigorous research methodology to provide unbiased results.
11
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
For instance, while experiments in chambers are common for office
setups, there are very few studies that perform controlled experiments
with residential setups. The lack of such comprehensive analysis is also
manifested in the limited exploration of the interrelationships between
various environmental conditions and how they affect different comfort
metrics (for example, how and why IAQ affects visual comfort) which
can have significant implications on the way we view comfort. In ad-
dition, there are very few studies that evaluated how environmental
conditions in MURBs can affect occupants’ long-term health as well as
their productivity in their workspaces, or at their residence if they work
from home. There is also limited guidance on the required environ-
mental conditions to maintain occupant comfort in homes compared to
commercial buildings. While it is harder to perform field studies in
residential buildings, focusing on certain areas of research can help
close the aforementioned gaps. Researchers should focus on developing
a multi-factor framework for evaluating occupant comfort in MURBs.
Guidelines for survey design and data collection methods can provide
specific strategies to minimize response biases. Laboratory studies with
residential setups can also significantly contribute to our understanding
of comfort in MURBs.
Funding
Funding was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC Grant RGPIN-2016-06324). The
authors also received financial support from the Ontario Ministry of
Research and Innovation for William O'Brien's Ontario Early Researcher
Award.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
The authors benefited from participating in the IEA EBC Annex 79
meeting. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support from
Ontario Early Researcher Award.
References
[1] S. Brasche, W. Bischof, Daily time spent indoors in German homes–baseline data
for the assessment of indoor exposure of German occupants, Int. J. Hyg Environ.
Health 208 (4) (2005) 247–253.
[2] N.E. Klepeis, W.C. Nelson, W.R. Ott, J.P. Robinson, A.M. Tsang, P. Switzer, et al.,
The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing
exposure to environmental pollutants, J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 11 (3)
(2001) 231.
[3] W. Spetic, R. Kozak, D. Cohen, How consumers value healthy houses: a
M.S. Andargie, et al.
preliminary segmentation of Canadian households, J. Hous. Built Environ. 23 (1)
(2008) 37–52.
[4] N.A. Oseland, Predicted and reported thermal sensation in climate chambers, of-
fices and homes, Energy Build. 23 (2) (1995) 105–115.
[5] L. Ricketts, J. Straube, A field study of airflow in mid to high-rise multi-unit re-
sidential buildings, Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2014, 2014.
[6] G. Rosen, A. Walks, Rising cities: condominium development and the private
transformation of the metropolis, Geoforum 49 (2013) 160–172.
[7] A. Roetzel, A. Tsangrassoulis, U. Dietrich, Impact of building design and occu-
pancy on office comfort and energy performance in different climates, Build.
Environ. 71 (2014) 165–175.
[8] Ioannidis, Dimosthenis Tropios P, S. Krinidis, Stavropoulos, D. George Tzovaras,
S. Likothanasis, Occupancy driven building performance assessment, J Innov Digit
Ecosyst 3 (2) (2016) 57–69.
[9] S. Mijorski, S. Cammelli, Stack effect in high-rise buildings: a review, Int J High-
Rise Build 5 (4) (2016) 327–338.
[10] J.H. Jo, M.S. Yeo, K.W. Kim, Effect of building design on pressure-related problems
in high-rise residential buildings, ARCC Spring Research Conference. Eugene,
Oregon, USA, 2007.
[11] W. Yang, N. Gao, The transport of gaseous pollutants due to stack effect in high-
rise residential buildings, Int. J. Vent. 14 (2) (2015) 191–208.
[12] ASHRAE, Fire and Smoke Control, ASHRAE Handbook–HVAC Applications,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2015.
[13] T.A. Kraev, G. Adamkiewicz, S.K. Hammond, J.D. Spengler, Indoor concentrations
of nicotine in low-income, multi-unit housing: associations with smoking beha-
viours and housing characteristics, Tobac. Contr. 18 (6) (2009) 438–444.
[14] J. Montgomery, Air Quality in Multi-Unit Residential Buildings vol. 9, RDH
Technical Bulletin No., 2015.
[15] R. Kennedy, L. Buys, E. Miller, Residents' experiences of privacy and comfort in
multi-storey apartment dwellings in subtropical Brisbane, Sustainability 7 (6)
(2015) 7741–7761.
[16] ASHRAE. ASHRAE, Handbook – HVAC Systems and Equipment. Atlanta, Georgia,
USA, (2016).
[17] M. Frontczak, S. Schiavon, J. Goins, E. Arens, H. Zhang, P. Wargocki, Quantitative
relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor
environmental quality and building design, Indoor Air 22 (2) (2012) 119–131.
[18] Roulet, N. Claude-Alain Johner, F. Foradini, P. Bluyssen, C. Cox, E. de Oliveira
Fernandes, B. Müller, et al., Perceived health and comfort in relation to energy use
and building characteristics, Build. Res. Inf. 34 (5) (2006) 467–474.
[19] J. Kim, R. de Dear, Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off in
open-plan offices, J. Environ. Psychol. 36 (2013) 18–26.
[20] C. Huizenga, S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus, E.A. Arens, Air quality and thermal
comfort in office buildings: results of a large indoor environmental quality survey,
Proceedings, Healthy Buildings 2006. Lisbon, Portugal, 2006, pp. 393–397.
[21] A. Ioannou, L. Itard, Energy performance and comfort in residential buildings:
sensitivity for building parameters and occupancy, Energy Build. 92 (2015)
216–233.
[22] S. Karjalainen, Thermal comfort and use of thermostats in Finnish homes and
offices, Build. Environ. 44 (6) (2009) 1237–1245.
[23] C. Morgan, R. de Dear, Weather, clothing and thermal adaptation to indoor cli-
mate, Clim. Res. 24 (3) (2003) 267–284.
[24] I. Sakellaris, D. Saraga, C. Mandin, C. Roda, S. Fossati, Y. De Kluizenaar, et al.,
Perceived indoor environment and occupants' comfort in European “modern” of-
fice buildings: the OFFICAIR study, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (5)
(2016) 444.
[25] R. De Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference, ASHRAE Transact. 104 (1) (1998) 145–167.
[26] A. Wagner, E. Gossauer, C. Moosmann, T. Gropp, R. Leonhart, Thermal comfort
and workplace occupant satisfaction—results of field studies in German low en-
ergy office buildings, Energy Build. 39 (7) (2007) 758–769.
[27] M. Bojic, F. Yik, T.Y. Lo, Locating air-conditioners and furniture inside residential
flats to obtain good thermal comfort, Energy Build. 34 (7) (2002) 745–751.
[28] J.T. Kim, G. Kim, Advanced external shading device to maximize visual and view
performance, Indoor Built Environ. 19 (1) (2010) 65–72.
[29] Y.T. Kwok, A.K.L. Lai, K.K.L. Lau, P.W. Chan, Y. Lavafpour, J.C.K. Ho, et al.,
Thermal comfort and energy performance of public rental housing under typical
and near-extreme weather conditions in Hong Kong, Energy Build. 156 (2017)
390–403.
[30] B. Nghana, F. Tariku, Phase change material's (PCM) impacts on the energy per-
formance and thermal comfort of buildings in a mild climate, Build. Environ. 99
(2016) 221–238.
[31] S. Ahrentzen, J. Erickson, E. Fonseca, Thermal and health outcomes of energy
efficiency retrofits of homes of older adults, Indoor Air 26 (4) (2016) 582–593.
[32] V. Földváry, G. Bekö, S. Langer, K. Arrhenius, D. Petráš, Effect of energy re-
novation on indoor air quality in multifamily residential buildings in Slovakia,
Build. Environ. 122 (2017) 363–372.
[33] V. Leivo, M. Turunen, A. Aaltonen, M. Kiviste, L. Du, U. Haverinen-Shaughnessy,
Impacts of energy retrofits on ventilation rates, CO2-levels and occupants' sa-
tisfaction with indoor air quality, Energy Procedia 96 (2016) 260–265.
[34] N. Wong, H. Feriadi, P. Lim, K. Tham, C. Sekhar, K. Cheong, Thermal comfort
evaluation of naturally ventilated public housing in Singapore, Build. Environ. 37
(12) (2002) 1267–1277.
[35] P. Xue, C.M. Mak, H.D. Cheung, J. Chao, Post-occupancy evaluation of sunshades
and balconies' effects on luminous comfort through a questionnaire survey, Build.
Serv. Eng. Technol. 37 (1) (2016) 51–65.
12
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
[36] M. Indraganti, K.D. Rao, 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. 42 (3) (2010) 273–281.
[37] J.Y. Jeon, J.K. Ryu, P.J. Lee, A quantification model of overall dissatisfaction with
indoor noise environment in residential buildings. Appl Acoust [Internet], [cited
2019 Feb 18];71(10):914–21. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0003682X10001295.
[38] E.D.L. Patiño, D. Vakalis, M. Touchie, E. Tzekova, J. Siegel, Thermal comfort in
multi-unit social housing buildings, Build. Environ. 144 (2018) 230–237.
[39] P. Strøm‐Tejsen, D. Zukowska, P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, The effects of bedroom air
quality on sleep and next‐day performance. Indoor Air, 26, Indoor Air 26 (5)
(2016) 679–686 (5):679–86.
[40] Z. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Zhao, Y. He, A. Li, Thermal responses to different residential
environments in Harbin, Build. Environ. 46 (11) (2011) 2170–2178.
[41] S. Wei, Y. Sun, M. Li, W. Lin, D. Zhao, Y. Shi, 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. 46 (6) (2011)
1275–1283.
[42] R. Becker, M. Paciuk, Thermal comfort in residential buildings–failure to predict
by standard model, Build. Environ. 44 (5) (2009) 948–960.
[43] M.-J. Cheng, R.-L. Hwang, T.-P. Lin, Field experiments on thermal comfort re-
quirements for campus dormitories in Taiwan, Indoor Built Environ. 17 (3) (2008)
191–202.
[44] R.L. Hwang, C.P. Chen, Field study on behaviors and adaptation of elderly people
and their thermal comfort requirements in residential environments, Indoor Air 20
(3) (2010) 235–245.
[45] M. Indraganti, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated apartments in summer:
findings from a field study in Hyderabad, India, Appl. Energy 87 (3) (2010)
866–883.
[46] B. Li, C. Du, R. Yao, W. Yu, V. Costanzo, Indoor thermal environments in Chinese
residential buildings responding to the diversity of climates. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 129, 693-708, Appl. Therm. Eng. 129 (2018) 693–708.
[47] M. Luo, B. Cao, X. Zhou, M. Li, J. Zhang, Q. Ouyang, et al., Can personal control
influence human thermal comfort? A field study in residential buildings in China
in winter, Energy Build. 72 (2014) 411–418.
[48] K.C. Rajan, H.B. Rijal, M. Shukuya, K. Yoshida, An in-situ study on occupants'
behaviors for adaptive thermal comfort in a Japanese HEMS condominium, J Build
Eng 19 (2018) 402–411.
[49] J.H. Ryu, W.H. Hong, H.C. Seo, Y.K. Seo, Determination of an acceptable comfort
zone for apartment occupants in South Korea: an empirical analysis of cooling
operation. Building and Environment, 125, 484-501, Build. Environ. 125 (2017)
484–501.
[50] Z. -j. Wang, G. Wang, L.-M. Lian, A field study of the thermal environment in
residential buildings in Harbin, ASHRAE Transact. 109 (2) (2003) 350–355.
[51] Z. Gou, W. Gamage, S.S.-Y. Lau, S.S.-Y. Lau, An investigation of thermal comfort
and adaptive behaviors in naturally ventilated residential buildings in tropical
climates: a pilot study, Buildings 8 (1) (2018) 5.
[52] A. Udaykumar, E. Rajasekar, R. Venkateswaran, Thermal comfort characteristics
in naturally ventilated, residential apartments in a hot-dry climate of India, Indoor
Built Environ. 24 (1) (2015) 101–115.
[53] C. Cândido, R. de Dear, R. Lamberts, Combined thermal acceptability and air
movement assessments in a hot humid climate, Build. Environ. 46 (2) (2011)
379–385.
[54] A. Farghal, A. Wagner, Studying the adaptive comfort model a case study in a hot
dry climate, Cairo, Egypt, Proceedings of Conference, Adapting to Change: New
Thinking on Comfort, 2010, pp. 9–11.
[55] D.H.C. Toe, T. Kubota, Development of an adaptive thermal comfort equation for
naturally ventilated buildings in hot–humid climates using ASHRAE RP-884 da-
tabase, Front Archit Res 2 (3) (2013) 278–291.
[56] F. Schaudienst, F.U. Vogdt, Fanger's model of thermal comfort: a model suitable
just for men? Energy Procedia 132 (2017) 129–134.
[57] S. Aghniaey, T.M. Lawrence, The impact of increased cooling setpoint temperature
during demand response events on occupant thermal comfort in commercial
buildings: a review, Energy Build. 173 (2018) 19–27.
[58] A. Wagner, R.K. Andersen, H. Zhang, R. de Dear, M. Schweiker, E. Goh, et al.,
Laboratory Approaches to Studying Occupants. Exploring Occupant Behavior in
Buildings, Springer, 2018, pp. 169–212.
[59] V. Tiefenbeck, On the magnitude and persistence of the Hawthorne effect—evi-
dence from four field studies, 4th European Conference on Behaviour and Energy
Efficiency. Coimbra, Portugal, 2016.
[60] D.P. Wyon, P. Wargocki, How indoor environment affects performance, ASHRAE
J. 55 (3) (2013) 46–52.
[61] H. Zhang, Human Thermal Sensation and Comfort in Transient and Non-uniform
Thermal Environments, Center for the Built Environment, 2003.
[62] M. Kim, S.C. Chong, C. Chun, Y. Choi, Effect of thermal sensation on emotional
responses as measured through brain waves, Build. Environ. 118 (2017) 32–39.
[63] F. Goia, L. Finocchiaro, A. Gustavsen, The ZEB Living Lab at the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology: a zero emission house for engineering and
social science experiments, 7th Passivhus Norden. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015.
[64] A. Nathwani, R. de Dear, C. Cândido, The missing link—next generation IEQ LAB
with ultimate flexibility, 7th Windsor Conference: the Changing Contest of
Comfort in an Unpredictable World. London, UK, 2012.
[65] I.E. Bennet, W. O'Brien, Field study of thermal comfort and occupant satisfaction
in Canadian condominiums, Architect. Sci. Rev. 60 (1) (2017) 27–39.
[66] M. Bonde, J. Ramirez, A post-occupancy evaluation of a green rated and con-
ventional on-campus residence hall, Int J Sustain Built Environ 4 (2) (2015)
M.S. Andargie, et al.
400–408.
[67] C. Brown, M. Gorgolewski, Assessing occupant satisfaction and energy behaviours
in Toronto's LEED gold high-rise residential buildings, Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.
8 (4) (2014) 492–505.
[68] L. Du, T. Prasauskas, V. Leivo, M. Turunen, M. Pekkonen, M. Kiviste, et al.,
Assessment of indoor environmental quality in existing multi-family buildings in
North–East Europe, Environ. Int. 79 (2015) 74–84.
[69] F. Ismail, I.L. Jabar, N.A.I. Janipha, R. Razali, Measuring the quality of life in low
cost residential environment, Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 168 (2015) 270–279.
[70] L. Liu, P. Rohdin, B. Moshfegh, Evaluating indoor environment of a retrofitted
multi-family building with improved energy performance in Sweden, Energy
Build. 102 (2015) 32–44.
[71] F. Noris, G. Adamkiewicz, W.W. Delp, T. Hotchi, M. Russell, B.C. Singer, et al.,
Indoor environmental quality benefits of apartment energy retrofits, Build.
Environ. 68 (2013) 170–178.
[72] M. Pekkonen, L. Du, J.-P. Skön, M. Raatikainen, U. Haverinen-Shaughnessy, The
influence of tenure status on housing satisfaction and indoor environmental
quality in Finnish apartment buildings, Build. Environ. 89 (2015) 134–140.
[73] M.F. Silva, S. Maas, H.A. de Souza, A.P. Gomes, Post-occupancy evaluation of
residential buildings in Luxembourg with centralized and decentralized ventila-
tion systems, focusing on indoor air quality (IAQ). Assessment by questionnaires
and physical measurements, Energy Build. 148 (2017) 119–127.
[74] Y. Zhao, H. Sun, D. Tu, Effect of mechanical ventilation and natural ventilation on
indoor climates in Urumqi residential buildings, Build. Environ. 144 (2018)
108–118.
[75] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, Y.K. Baik, G. Clausen, P.O. Fanger, Perceived air quality,
sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two
different pollution loads, Indoor Air 9 (3) (1999) 165–179.
[76] E.H. Chan, K. Lam, W. Wong, Evaluation on indoor environment quality of dense
urban residential buildings, J. Facil. Manag. 6 (4) (2008) 245–265.
[77] N.D. Dahlan, P.J. Jones, D.K. Alexander, E. Salleh, J. Alias, Evidence base prior-
itisation of indoor comfort perceptions in Malaysian typical multi-storey hostels,
Build. Environ. 44 (10) (2009) 2158–2165.
[78] N. Dahlan, Perceptive-cognitive aspects investigation in relation to indoor en-
vironment satisfaction collected from naturally ventilated multi-storey student
accommodations in Malaysia, Indoor Built Environ. 24 (1) (2015) 116–127.
[79] J. Rattray, M.C. Jones, Essential elements of questionnaire design and develop-
ment, J. Clin. Nurs. 16 (2) (2007) 234–243.
[80] P. Xue, C. Mak, Z. Ai, A structured approach to overall environmental satisfaction
in high-rise residential buildings, Energy Build. 116 (2016) 181–189.
[81] D.C. Ho, H. Leung, S. Wong, A. Cheung, S. Lau, W. Wong, et al., Assessing the
health and hygiene performance of apartment buildings, Facilities 22 (3/4) (2004)
58–69.
[82] S.H. Cho, T.K. Lee, J.T. Kim, Residents' satisfaction of indoor environmental
quality in their old apartment homes, Indoor Built Environ. 20 (1) (2011) 16–25.
[83] S. Carlucci, F. Causone, F. De Rosa, L. Pagliano, A review of indices for assessing
visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support
building integrated design, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015) 1016–1033.
[84] K. Konis, Predicting visual comfort in side-lit open-plan core zones: results of a
field study pairing high dynamic range images with subjective responses, Energy
Build. 77 (2014) 67–79.
[85] S.H. Park, P.J. Lee, B.K. Lee, Levels and sources of neighbour noise in heavyweight
residential buildings in Korea, Appl. Acoust. 120 (2017) 148–157.
[86] K.D. Kryter, The Effects of Noise on Man, Academic Press, New York, 1985.
[87] M.S. Andargie, E. Azar, An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor
office environmental factors on occupants' comfort and working conditions,
Sustain Cities Soc 46 (2019) 101447.
[88] P.R. Boyce, J.A. Veitch, G.R. Newsham, C. Jones, J. Heerwagen, M. Myer, et al.,
Lighting quality and office work: two field simulation experiments, Light. Res.
Technol. 38 (3) (2006) 191–223.
[89] M. Haneda, N. Nishihara, S. Nakamura, S. Uchida, S.I. Tanabe, A field measure-
ment of thermal environment in cool biz office and the evaluation on productivity
by a questionnaire survey, J. Environ. Eng. 74 (637) (2009) 389–396.
[90] O. Seppanen, W.J. Fisk, Q. Lei, Effect of Temperature on Task Performance in
Office Environment, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, California, USA, 2006.
[91] N. Bloom, J. Liang, J. Roberts, Z.J. Ying, Does working from home work? Evidence
from a Chinese experiment, Q. J. Econ. 130 (1) (2014) 165–218.
[92] R. Pierce, K. St Amant, Working from home in a globally distributed environment,
29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. Pisa, Italy,
2011, pp. 223–226.
[93] L. Lan, Z. Lian, X. Zhou, C. Sun, H. Huang, Y. Lin, et al., Pilot study on the ap-
plication of bedside personalized ventilation to sleeping people. , 67, 160-166,
Build. Environ. 67 (2013) 160–166.
[94] X. Zhou, Z. Lian, L. Lan, Experimental study on a bedside personalized ventilation
system for improving sleep comfort and quality, Indoor Built Environ. 23 (2)
(2014) 313–323.
[95] A.A. Jamaludin, N. Keumala, A.R.M. Ariffin, H. Hussein, Satisfaction and per-
ception of residents towards bioclimatic design strategies: residential college
buildings, Indoor Built Environ. 23 (7) (2014) 933–945.
[96] S.-K. Wong, L.W.-C. Lai, D.C.-W. Ho, K.-W. Chau, C.L.-K. Lam, C.H.-F. Ng, Sick
building syndrome and perceived indoor environmental quality: a survey of
apartment buildings in Hong Kong, Habitat Int. 33 (4) (2009) 463–471.
[97] C.S. Mitchell, J. Zhang, T. Sigsgaard, M. Jantunen, P.J. Lioy, R. Samson, et al.,
Current state of the science: health effects and indoor environmental quality,
Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (6) (2007) 958–964.
13
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
[98] C.A. Redlich, J. Sparer, M.R. Cullen, Sick-building syndrome, Lancet 349 (9057)
(1997) 1013–1016.
[99] J.H. Lee, Y.S. Sohn, A comparative study on sick building syndrome by apartment
unit plan with and without cross ventilation, J. Asian Architect. Build Eng. 13 (1)
(2014) 63–70.
[100] W. Ye, X. Zhang, J. Gao, G. Cao, X. Zhou, X. Su, Indoor air pollutants, ventilation
rate determinants and potential control strategies in Chinese dwellings: a litera-
ture review, Sci. Total Environ. 586 (2017) 696–729.
[101] K. Mui, L. Wong, Neutral temperature in subtropical climates—a field survey in
air-conditioned offices, Build. Environ. 42 (2) (2007) 699–706.
[102] G. Brager, G. Paliaga, R. de Dear, Operable windows, personal control and occu-
pant comfort, ASHRAE Transact. 110 (2004) 17–35.
[103] A.C.K. Lai, K.W. Mui, L.T. Wong, L.Y. Law, An evaluation model for indoor en-
vironmental quality (IEQ) acceptance in residential buildings, Energy Build. 41 (9)
(2009) 930–936.
[104] F. Haldi, D. Robinson, On the behaviour and adaptation of office occupants, Build.
Environ. 43 (12) (2008) 2163–2177.
[105] M. De Carli, B.W. Olesen, A. Zarrella, R. Zecchin, People's clothing behaviour
according to external weather and indoor environment, Build. Environ. 42 (12)
(2007) 3965–3973.
[106] P. Srisuwan, K. Shoichi, Field investigation on indoor thermal environment of a
high-rise condominium in hot-humid climate of Bangkok, Thailand, Procedia Eng
180 (2017) 1754–1762.
[107] H.B. Gunay, W. O'Brien, I. Beausoleil-Morrison, A. Perna, On the behavioral effects
of residential electricity submetering in a heating season, Build. Environ. 81
(2014) 396–403.
[108] D.P. Wyon, The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity,
Indoor Air 14 (7) (2004) 92–101.
[109] K.W. Tham, Indoor air quality and its effects on humans—a review of challenges
and developments in the last 30 years, Energy Build. 130 (2016) 637–650.
[110] A.P. Jones, Indoor air quality and health, Atmos. Environ. 33 (28) (1999)
4535–4564.
[111] G. Rojas, W. Wagner, J. Suschek-Berger, R. Pfluger, W. Feist, Applying the passive
house concept to a social housing project in Austria–evaluation of the indoor
environment based on long-term measurements and user surveys, Adv. Build.
Energy Res. 10 (1) (2016) 125–148.
[112] A. Zalejska-Jonsson, M. Wilhelmsson, Impact of perceived indoor environment
quality on overall satisfaction in Swedish dwellings, Build. Environ. 63 (2013)
134–144.
[113] N. Alkhalili, T. Kesik, W. O'Brien, T. Peters, Developing and testing visual privacy
metrics, 7th International Building Physics Conference (IBPC 2018). Syracuse, NY,
USA, 2018.
[114] C. Giarma, K. Tsikaloudaki, D. Aravantinos, Daylighting and visual comfort in
buildings' environmental performance assessment tools: a critical review, Procedia
Environ Sci 38 (2017) 522–529.
[115] A.D. Galasiu, J.A. Veitch, Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous
environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review, Energy
Build. 38 (7) (2006) 728–742 2006.
[116] J. Holton, Strategy Guideline: High Performance Residential Lighting, US
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program., 2012.
[117] IESNA, Lighting Handbook: Reference & Application, Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America, 2000.
[118] M. Bodart, B. Roisin, A. Deneyer, P. D'Herdt, Establishment of innovation guide-
lines for the residential lighting from a relighting project, Lux Eur (2009) 8–10.
[119] K.O. Ballagh, Accuracy of prediction methods for sound transmission loss, INTER-
NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings. Prague, Czech
Republic, 2004.
[120] W. Burns, Noise and Man, William Clowes & Sons Limited, London, 1973.
[121] K.P. Waye, Effects of low frequency noise and vibrations: environmental and oc-
cupational perspectives, Encycl Environ Heal (2011) 240–253.
[122] T. McMinn, A-weighting: is it the metric you think it is? Acoust 1–4 (2013) 2013.
[123] N.A. Oseland, A comparison of the predicted and reported thermal sensation vote
in homes during winter and summer, Energy Build. 21 (1) (1994) 45–54.
[124] J.F. Nicol, M. Humphreys, Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal
comfort, ASHRAE Transact. 104 (1998) 991–1004.
[125] H. Liu, Y. Wu, B. Li, Y. Cheng, R. Yao, Seasonal variation of thermal sensations in
residential buildings in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter zone of China, Energy
Build. 140 (2017) 9–18.
[126] R. Yao, J. Liu, B. Li, Occupants' adaptive responses and perception of thermal
environment in naturally conditioned university classrooms, Appl. Energy 87 (3)
(2010) 1015–1022.
[127] J.H. Lai, F.W. Yik, Perception of importance and performance of the indoor en-
vironmental quality of high-rise residential buildings, Build. Environ. 44 (2)
(2009) 352–360.
[128] T.K. Lee, S.H. Cho, J.T. Kim, Residents' adjusting behaviour to enhance indoor
environmental comfort in apartments, Indoor Built Environ. 21 (1) (2012) 28–40.
[129] A. Liu, Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective, Autom
Constr 8 (4) (1999) 511–524.
[130] A. Zalejska-Jonsson, Evaluation of low-energy and conventional residential
buildings from occupants' perspective, Build. Environ. 58 (2012) 135–144.
[131] S. Karjalainen, Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review, Indoor Air 22 (2)
(2012) 96–109.
[132] P. Mehnert, P. Bröde, B. Griefahn, Gender-related difference in sweat loss and its
impact on exposure limits to heat stress, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29 (6) (2002) 343–351.
[133] S. Karjalainen, Gender differences in thermal comfort and use of thermostats in
M.S. Andargie, et al.
everyday thermal environments, Build. Environ. 42 (4) (2007) 1594–1603.
[134] M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influence
human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (4) (2011) 922–937.
[135] F. Haghighat, G. Donnini, Impact of psycho-social factors on perception of the
indoor air environment studies in 12 office buildings, Build. Environ. 34 (4)
(1999) 479–503.
[136] S.H. Park, P.J. Lee, K.S. Yang, Perception and reaction to floor impact noise in
apartment buildings: a qualitative approach, Acta Acust United with Acust 102 (5)
(2016) 902–911.
[137] A. Zalejska-Jonsson, Parameters contributing to occupants' satisfaction: green and
conventional residential buildings, Facilities 32 (7/8) (2014) 411–437.
[138] M.B. Aries, J.A. Veitch, G.R. Newsham, Windows, view, and office characteristics
predict physical and psychological discomfort, J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4) (2010)
533–541.
[139] P.R. Lyons, D. Arasteh, C. Huizenga, Window performance for human thermal
comfort, ASHRAE Transact. 106 (1) (2000) 594–604.
[140] D. Vakalis, M. Touchie, E. Tzekova, H.L. MacLean, J.A. Siegel, Indoor environ-
mental quality perceptions of social housing residents, Build. Environ. 150 (2019)
135–143.
14
Building and Environment 160 (2019) 106182
[141] A.R. Amaral, E. Rodrigues, A.R. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, A thermal performance para-
metric study of window type, orientation, size and shadowing effect, Sustain Cities
Soc 26 (2016) 456–465.
[142] Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, Assessment of window performance in class-
rooms by long term spatial comfort metrics, Energy Build. 134 (2017) 80–93.
[143] R.L. Hwang, S.Y. Shu, Building envelope regulations on thermal comfort in glass
facade buildings and energy-saving potential for PMV-based comfort control,
Build. Environ. 46 (4) (2011) 824–834.
[144] A. Astolfi, F. Pellerey, Subjective and objective assessment of acoustical and
overall environmental quality in secondary school classrooms, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
123 (1) (2008) 163–173.
[145] M.A. Humphreys, Quantifying occupant comfort: are combined indices of the in-
door environment practicable? Build. Res. Inf. 33 (4) (2005) 317–325.
[146] L.T. Wong, K.W. Mui, P.S. Hui, A multivariate-logistic model for acceptance of
indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in offices, Build. Environ. 43 (1) (2008) 1–6.
[147] U. Haverinen-Shaughnessy, M. Pekkonen, V. Leivo, T. Prasauskas, M. Turunen,
M. Kiviste, et al., Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality and
health after energy retrofits of multi-family buildings: results from INSULAtE-
project, Int. J. Hyg Environ. Health 221 (6) (2018) 921–928.