Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270

DOI 10.1007/s12053-015-9422-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Should we design buildings that are less sensitive to occupant

behaviour? A simulation study of effects of behaviour
and design on office energy consumption
Sami Karjalainen

Received: 24 March 2015 / Accepted: 29 December 2015 / Published online: 14 January 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract In an ideal world, occupants have an under- Keywords Behaviour change . Building design . Robust
standing of how building systems work and are moti- design . Energy conservation . Energy efficiency .
vated to use the systems as they were designed to be. Control system . Usability . Personal control
There is considerable evidence, however, that occupants
do not understand the principles of how buildings func-
tion and that they use the systems non-optimally. The
Introduction
purpose of the paper is to quantify the effect of occupant
behaviour on energy consumption and show how it is
Buildings are not used as the designers intended
affected by design strategies. Numerical simulations of
an office were performed with the dynamic thermal
Ideally, occupants understand how their building’s sys-
simulation software TRNSYS. Three types of behaviour
tems work and are motivated to use those systems as
(‘careless’, ‘normal’, and ‘conscious’) and two types of
was intended, thereby ensuring high energy-efficiency
design (‘ordinary’ and ‘robust’) were considered. The
and providing a safe, healthy, and productive work
results show that the effect of occupant behaviour on
environment. For several reasons, however, the ideal is
energy consumption is greatly diminished with robust
not achieved in practice and buildings under-perform.
design solutions, solutions that make buildings less
Buildings are complicated systems made up of diverse
sensitive to occupant behaviour. The careless user con-
independent systems. There is a great deal of evidence that
sumes 75–79 % less energy if the robust design solu-
occupants do not understand the principles of how build-
tions are applied rather than the ordinary design solu-
ings operate and that they use the systems non-optimally
tions. It is argued that a realistic view of occupant
or even inappropriately from the energy point of view.
behaviour is advantageous in the creation of energy-
Numerous examples are documented in the literature.
efficient buildings (that is, leaving less need to learn
Kempton (1987) analysed the common-sense beliefs
how buildings work, to be motivated to save energy,
about home heating control and found two theories as to
or to perform specific energy-saving actions). However,
how a thermostat works: a feedback-based theory and a
the possibility of personal control should not be
valve theory. In the feedback theory, a thermostat senses
eliminated.
room temperature. In the valve theory, a thermostat dial
is like a car’s accelerator pedal and controls the amount
of heat. The latter misconception affects the use of
thermostats. In a study of use of room air-conditioning
S. Karjalainen (*)
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, P.O. Box 1000, units, Kempton et al. (1992) found that how people
FI-02044 Espoo, VTT, Finland operated them was governed by multiple, overlapping
e-mail: sami.karjalainen@vtt.fi systems of belief and preferences related to health,
1258
thermal comfort, common-sense beliefs about how
air-conditioners function, etc., in addition to eco-
nomic factors.
Furthermore, Drake et al. (1986) found that occu-
pants are active in creating theories on how the systems
work and use the systems in accordance with their
beliefs even when this may involve circumvention.
Examples given of user actions include blocking sen-
sors, taping over air diffusers, and bringing in fans and
heaters. These actions often interfere with the intended
performance and increase energy consumption.
Widespread misconceptions exist with regard to
comfortable room temperatures. An interview study
(Karjalainen and Vastamäki 2007) reported that 41 %
of interviewees believed that comfortable room temper-
atures are lower in summer than in winter, which may
lead to increased energy use.
Karjalainen and Koistinen (2007) studied the use of
thermostats in offices and found that usability problems
were fundamental and varied. Occupants did not always
know even that they were able to control the temperature
room-specifically, because the device was not
recognised at all or its purpose remained unclear.
Although the room thermostats in offices were simple
to operate, the symbols seen in user interfaces were
often not understood correctly. An important reason
for many of the usability problems is that the systems
are produced without a realistic view of their users. In
other words, occupants are expected to have knowledge
that they do not actually possess.
The occupants themselves do recognise that their
knowledge is limited. When Karjalainen (2007) asked
occupants to rate their knowledge of the heating and
ventilation systems in Finland, reported knowledge of
the systems in office buildings was low, with a mean
value of 2.03 (very bad = 1, …, very good = 5).
Passiveness too is a factor. Foster and Oreszczyn
(2001) studied the use of Venetian blinds in offices in
London and found that the majority of blinds tend to be
kept down most of the time. A review of literature on
occupant interaction with window blinds (Van Den
Wymelenberg 2012) reveals that manual blinds have a
very low rate of daily change: 15 % are adjusted every
day or so, one third are not adjusted more often than
every 4 months, and 30 % are reported by users as never
being adjusted. Neither are window-shading devices
(including blinds and roller shades) operated actively:
most office occupants do not adjust the shades more
often than weekly or monthly (O’Brien et al. 2013).
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
Lighting is often on for no good reason, with 60 % of
European offices using lights even in the hottest weather
(Nicol 2001) (when more natural light is typically avail-
able). Occupants of offices and schools commonly have
either all or none of the lighting on at any given time
(Hunt 1979). Occupants in private offices with occu-
pancy sensors are less likely to turn off the lights when
leaving the room; i.e., people modify their behaviour in
the presence of occupancy sensors (Pigg et al. 1996).
Masoso and Grobler (2010) studied energy use in
commercial buildings in Botswana and South Africa
and found that more energy is used during non-
working hours (56 %) than the work day (44 %). The
main reason behind this pattern is that occupants leave
lights and other equipment on at the end of the day. It is
well known, for example, that computers are commonly
left on when workers leave the office. A field study
performed in the USA found that only 44 % of com-
puters and 32 % of monitors were switched off at night
(Webber et al. 2001). A field study in the UK found that
60 % of occupants never switch off their computers
when leaving the office (Zhang et al. 2011). Murtagh
et al. (2013) went further, arranging focus-group discus-
sions in which they collected reasons for not switching
things off. These include the following: ‘I failed to
suspend/hibernate it’, ‘The computer will not boot up
correctly in the morning’, lack of incentive to shut down
the computer, the car industry consuming more energy
than computers do, and that turning the unit off will
shorten the service life of the computer. Clearly, there
are multitudinous reasons for not shutting down a
computer.
Mulville et al. (2014) see potential for reducing desk-
level energy consumption by up to 20 % through be-
haviour changes in UK offices. Also, Junnila (2007)
calculated the energy savings potential in four banking
organisations in the Nordic region, finding that 20 %
savings on total electricity use can be gained with no or
very low investment costs. The calculated savings were
attributed to the reduced energy consumption of office
equipment and lighting.
Leaman (1999) has made observations on occupant
behaviours in his studies of buildings in use. The obser-
vations show that occupants often choose the easiest and
quickest option, rather than the best one, for their im-
mediate benefit. They spring into action in response to
arbitrary, external events. They are likely to make the
decision to use a switch or control only after being
prompted by an event, rather than in advance of it.
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
They often wait a fairly long time before taking action:
until they have reached a ‘crisis of discomfort’. They
may overcompensate in their reactions to relatively mi-
nor annoyances. They tend to operate the control that is
closest to hand or otherwise more convenient, rather
than the one that would be logically the most appropri-
ate. In addition, having made the decision to use a
switch, occupants often leave systems in the new state
rather than changing their state back again later, at least
until another crisis of discomfort is reached.
O’Brien and Gunay (2014) conclude their review on
adaptive comfort behaviours by arguing that ‘occupants
are not illogical and irrational but rather they attempt to
restore their comfort in the easiest way possible’.
Occupant behaviour is not easily modelled, since it is
affected by many contextual factors. O’Brien and
Gunay organised the contextual factors affecting occu-
pant behaviour into nine categories: (1) availability of
personal control, (2) accessibility of personal control,
(3) complexity and transparency of automation systems,
(4) presence of mechanical/electrical systems providing
alternative means of comfort, (5) view and connection to
the outdoors, (6) interior design, (7) experiences and
foreseeable future conditions, (8) visibility of energy
use, and (9) occupancy patterns and social constraints.
Can we modify occupant behaviour?
The fact that occupant behaviour has a large effect on
buildings’ energy consumption is well accepted; see, for
example, the review by Lopes et al. (2012). We also know
that it is possible to reduce energy consumption by modi-
fying occupant behaviour. Several studies have shown that
household energy consumption can be reduced by means
of feedback on one’s energy consumption, see reviews by
Darby (2001); Abrahamse et al. 2005; Fischer (2008);
Ehrhardt-Martinez et al. (2010) and Faruqui et al. (2010).
It should be noted here that research into energy-related
behaviours has focused largely on the residential sector
(Lopes et al. 2012); little research has dealt with energy
feedback in office environments, and we cannot generalise
the results for households to offices, since energy-related
behaviours are hugely complex and shaped by contextual
factors (Lopes et al. 2012; Steg and Vlek 2009; Coleman et
al. 2013; Littleford and Ryley 2014).
It is clear that the economic environment of offices is
very different from that of households. Occupants are
not responsible for the energy costs in office spaces as
they typically are in households. An interview-based
1259
study performed in Finland with 1000 respondents
showed that people make significantly less effort to save
energy in offices than in homes (Karjalainen 2007).
Occupants have less motivation to save energy in offices
because they do not pay for the energy themselves and
because they consider their energy use to be negligible
(Karjalainen 2007).
Secondly, energy costs in offices are low when com-
pared to the personnel costs of office work, e.g.,
Wargocki and Seppänen (2006). This means that from
the economic perspective, it is of fundamental impor-
tance to provide productive work environments and less
important to save on energy costs.
Factors other than those of economy may be more
effective in encouraging energy conservation in offices.
Handgraaf et al. (2013) gave office occupants feedback
on their energy consumption and compared the effect of
monetary and social rewards on energy conservation.
The results show that public social rewards were more
effective than monetary rewards for stimulating energy
conservation.
Leygue (2014) classified the types of motivation to
save energy at work as self-directed (involving self-
image and a ‘warm glow’) and altruistic (oriented to-
ward the planet and toward the organisation, including
the company’s image and finances). She performed a
survey in UK workplaces and found that people are
motivated mostly by environmental considerations.
Delmas and Lessem (2014) compared private feedback
and publicly posted information on conservation behav-
iour in experiments at halls of residence at the University
of California. They found no effect of private information
provision on conservation behaviour. Public information
(posters with red or green stickers as indicators of the level
of energy use) in combination with private feedback mo-
tivated 20 % savings in electricity consumption. The
authors concluded that public information can encourage
conservation, partially by ‘allowing people to communi-
cate their greenness to the world’.
Normative social influence may affect energy use in
offices, although the studies described next were carried
out in other contexts. Nolan et al. (2008) studied energy
conservation in California households and found that
normative social influence affects energy behaviour;
that is, ‘witnessing the actions of other people has a
powerful effect on behaviour’. While the participants
believed that their neighbours’ behaviour had a very
limited influence on their own behaviour, this actually
was the factor with the strongest effect on the
1260
participants’ energy-conservation behaviour. People
seem to hold incorrect beliefs as to what motivates them:
the behaviour of others motivated them to conserve
energy, although they did not recognise this themselves.
Siero et al. (1996) examined energy-related behaviour in
a metallurgy company and found that employees who
received comparative feedback saved more energy than
those who received only information about their own
performance. Hardly any changes in attitudes or inten-
tions were recorded.
Greater concern for the environment is associated with
pro-environment behaviour, although this correlation is
generally not strong (Steg and Vlek 2009). Spence et al.
(2014) see highlighting the relationship between climate
change and energy savings as of possible benefit for
promotion of pro-environment behaviour.
Recent studies involving energy conservation in of-
fices include the following. In their field study of indi-
viduals’ energy use and feedback in UK offices, Murtagh
et al. (2013) found that people’s reports of their pro-
environment behaviour was not correlated with actual
energy-linked behaviour. Although a reduction in energy
consumption was achieved, the authors found consider-
able lack of motivation to conserve energy among the
office occupants. Though occupants consumed much
more energy at their desks than they really needed, they
were not very prepared to change their energy-use be-
haviour, and 41 % of the office occupants did not access
their worker-specific energy feedback even once.
Carrico and Riemer (2011) carried out two interven-
tions in an office environment to study their effect on
energy consumption. They distributed group-level feed-
back via e-mail and used educators to disseminate in-
formation and encourage colleagues to reduce their
energy use. The feedback and peer education resulted
in a 7 and 4 % reduction in energy use, respectively.
Orland et al. (2014) educated users and prompted
behaviour change through serious game-style interven-
tions in an office environment. They created an ‘energy
chicken’ game in which chickens gain or decline in
health in line with the energy consumption of a specific
device. The reported results are that average plug-load
energy consumption was reduced by 13 %: 7 % on work
days and 23 % on non-work days.
Coleman et al. (2013) found barriers to utilisation of
energy-feedback technologies in offices. Occupants of-
ten feel that the only energy consumption under their
direct control is that of their workstation equipment
(e.g., computer, monitor, desk lamp). Occupants are
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
focused on work, accomplishing the tasks for which
they were hired, instead of energy-saving activities.
Should we design buildings that are less sensitive
to occupant behaviour?
One strategy for conservation of energy in offices is to
target modification of occupant behaviour in such a way
that occupants reduce their energy use. There are chal-
lenges in modifying occupant behaviour, especially in
offices (see Subsection BCan we modify occupant
behaviour?^); i.e., we cannot assume that it is easy to
modify behaviours, let alone achieve a significant and
permanent decrease in energy use.
Another strategy is to design solutions that make
buildings less sensitive to occupant behaviour—that is,
make design choices that diminish the effect of occupant
behaviour on energy consumption.
O’Brien (2013) has argued for occupant-proof build-
ings. He uses the term ‘robust’ (earlier used in this
context by Palme et al. 2006 and Hoes et al. 2009) for
building-design strategies that are less sensitive to occu-
pant behaviour. A few examples of robust design are
occupant detection for the control of lighting, an over-
hang above windows to limit the solar energy entering
the room through the windows, and thermochromic win-
dows to adapt to changing levels of sunshine and limit
the solar energy entering the room (O’Brien 2013). Also,
solutions that consume less energy, such as employing
LED lighting instead of fluorescent tubes and opting for a
laptop computer instead of a desktop PC, can be deemed
robust, as the effect of occupant behaviour on the energy
consumption is lower than with the alternatives.
Table 1 gives on overview of these two strategies and
shows their significant differences from the occupant
point of view.
Now that background information has been laid out,
the paper can proceed toward its goal of quantifying the
effect of occupant behaviour on energy consumption
and showing how this is affected by design strategies.
Method
Basic cases
Numerical simulations were performed to study the
effect of behaviour and that of design on office energy
consumption. The simulations were performed with the
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270 1261

Table 1 Overview of the two strategies for energy savings from Table 2 The simulated office
the occupant perspective
Area 10.4 m2
Saving energy Saving energy Volume 31.2 m3
by modifying by designing
Window 1.8 m2, U = 0.68 W/m2K, g = 0.41,
occupant solutions that
orientation: north-facing
behaviour are less sensitive
to occupant External wall 6.3 m2 (without window), concrete,
behaviour U = 0.19 W/m2K, orientation:
north-facing
Occupants have to be Yes No Other walls No heat transfer between this and
motivated to save other offices—i.e., adjacent
energy rooms are assumed to have
Occupants have to Yes No identical thermal conditions
perform energy-saving Ventilation 1.5 (dm3/s)/m2 (1.8 1/h), heat
actions in order to recovery efficiency 70 %,
save energy supply air temperature 20 °C
Occupants need to More Less The air-handling unit includes a
possess knowledge heat-recovery unit and a heating
of how the building coil but no cooling or
works humidification. The air-flow
rate is chosen in line with
regulations ( D2 National
Building Code of Finland 2003).
dynamic thermal simulation software TRNSYS 17.1 The air-flow rate during the
(Klein et al. 2012) and its building model Type 56. night and on weekends is 25 %
A single-person office modelled on the basis of a of the daytime air-flow rate.
room in Finland’s METOP low-energy building (Laine Infiltration 0.1 1/h
and Saari 1994) was simulated. Weather data from Location Helsinki, Finland
Helsinki were utilised. Detailed information on the of- Room air temperature Heating set point: winter season
fice is presented in Table 2. set point 21 °C, summer season
(June–August) 23 °C
The simulation model calculates heating and cooling Cooling set point: winter season
demand—the energy needed to keep the room air tem- 24 °C, summer season
perature between the set points. The room temperature (June–August) 26 °C
set points utilised in the simulations are shown in Table No heating or cooling energy is
used when the room air
2. Adjacent rooms are assumed to have identical thermal temperature is between
conditions—i.e., no heat is transferred between rooms. the heating and cooling set points.
The amount of energy needed by the air-handling unit to Occupancy One person is working in the
heat the air flow is calculated and added to the heating- office between 8 a.m. and
demand value. The electricity consumption considered 4 p.m. on Monday to Friday,
except for 1 h at lunchtime,
includes the energy use of lighting and the user’s com- between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m.
puter. Simulations spanning a year were performed with
1-h time step.
Six cases were simulated to study the effects of below). These behaviours were chosen for simulation
behaviour and design. Three types of behaviour were because of their large effect on energy use.
considered: ‘careless’, ‘normal’, and ‘conscious’ behav- In basic cases, it is supposed that the window is not
iour. The careless user does not care about consumption operable because this is a common situation in me-
and leaves the lights and computer on when leaving the chanically ventilated office buildings; see e.g., Rijal et
office, while normal and conscious users turn them off. al. (2007). If the windows are operable in mechanical-
The conscious user turns the lighting and computer off ly ventilated offices, their use is often discouraged
also for the lunch hour. Table 3 provides a summary of (Rijal et al. 2007; Wang and Greenberg 2015).
the behaviours simulated. No other behavioural ele- Additional simulation cases were performed in which
ments than lighting use and computer use are considered the user opens the window (BThe effect of window-
(except in the additional simulation cases, addressed opening behaviour^).
1262 Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270

Table 3 The behaviours simulated

Use of lighting Computer use

Careless Leaves the lighting on when leaving the office. Lighting is on continuously. Leaves the computer on when leaving the
office. The computer is on continuously.
Normal Turns lights on when the lighting level is beyond a certain threshold (total Has the computer on during the working day.
horizontal radiation outdoors < 120 W/m2). Turns the lighting off when
leaving the office after work or when the lighting level is above a certain
threshold (total horizontal radiation outdoors > 200 W/m2).
Conscious As above but lighting is turned off for the 1-h lunch period every day. As above but the computer is turned off for the
1-h lunch period every day.

Two types of design were considered: ‘ordinary’ and
‘robust’ design. The latter refers to the following design
solutions: occupant detection for the control of lighting,
an overhang above the window to limit the solar energy
entering the room through the window, LED lighting,
and a laptop as the computer. The focus of the study is
not on the building structures and other elements that are
difficult to change without a great cost. Table 4 presents
a summary of the simulated designs.
Additional cases
Additional simulation cases were performed to study the
effects of climate, window-opening behaviour and room
temperature set points.
The effect of climate
Simulations were performed in three climates to study
the sensitivity of the results to the weather. In addition to
the northern European location (Helsinki, Finland), ad-
ditional cases were simulated with weather data from
central Europe (Frankfurt, Germany) and southern
Europe (Napoli, Italy). All the other parameters were
similar to those in the basic cases described in Section
BBasic cases^.
The effect of window-opening behaviour
Additional simulation cases were examined to assess the
effect of window-opening behaviour on energy con-
sumption. Occupants’ window-opening behaviour is
influenced by many interconnected factors, and no con-
sensus has been reached about how this behaviour in
offices should be modelled (Rijal et al. 2007; Herkel et
al. 2008; Fabi et al. 2012; Zhang and Barrett 2012). The
driving forces are multidisciplinary and were divided by
Fabi et al. (2012) into five categories: physical environ-
mental, contextual, psychological, physiological and
social. Most field studies have been performed in natu-
rally ventilated buildings in which the proportion of
open windows is increased in line with higher outdoor
and indoor temperatures (Rijal et al. 2007; Fabi et al.
2012; Zhang and Barrett 2012). In these simulations, it
is supposed that the window is opened at 1 p.m. after
returning to the office after lunch if the outdoor temper-
ature is 10 °C or higher. The air change rate through an
opened window is dependent on a number of factors,
including window type, window width, window-

Table 4 The designs simulated

Occupant detection Overhang above the window Power use for lighting Power use of a computer

Ordinary No No 156 W (~15 W/m2) 230 Wa (PC and monitor)

2
Robust Yes Yes 42 W (~4 W/m ) (LED lighting) 60 W (laptop and external
Lighting controlled by occupant Projection: 1 m, installed monitor)
detection—i.e., automatically 0.2 m above the window
turned off if the room is
unoccupied
a
Default values in the TRNSYS simulation program were used. The power use values are highly variable between different PC systems, as
shown in ASHRAE (2009). The default values in TRNSYS are among the highest
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
opening angle, temperature difference and wind speed.
The average air change rate due to the occupants has
been measured to be from 0.25 to 0.8 in the studies
reviewed by Fabi et al. (2012). In these simulations, it is
supposed that the air change rate through the opening is
0.5 1/h.
The effect of room air temperature set points
Because there are individual differences in the room
temperature preferences and condition tolerance, addi-
tional simulation cases were examined to assess the
effect of the room temperature set points on energy
consumption. The set points used were dependent on
season, as shown in Table 2, and the difference between
the cooling set point and heating set point was 3 °C in
both seasons. Additional simulations were performed
with lower and higher set points (Table 5) and with a
difference of 1 and 5 °C between the cooling and
heating set point (Table 6). No heating or cooling energy
is used when the room air temperature is between the
heating and cooling set points.
Results
Basic cases
The total energy consumption, including cooling,
heating and electricity, is presented in Fig. 1 for all six
cases. One of the cases showed much higher energy
consumption than the others. With careless behaviour
and ordinary design, the energy consumption for the
single-person office over the span of 1 year is
6.1 MWh. For the other cases, it is between 0.8 and
1.3 MWh.
Table 5 Room air temperature set points in additional simulation
cases studying the effects of low and high set points
Winter season Summer season
(June–August)
Heating set Cooling set Heating set Cooling set
point (°C) point (°C) point (°C) point (°C)
Normal (N) 21 24 23 26
Low (L) 19 22 21 24
High (H) 23 26 25 28
1263
Table 6 Room air temperature set points in additional simulation
cases studying the effects of differences between the cooling and
heating set points
Winter season Summer season
(June–August)
Heating Cooling Heating Cooling
set point set point set point set point
(°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Difference of 3 °C 21 24 23 26
Difference of 1 °C 22 23 24 25
Difference of 5 °C 20 25 22 27
The electricity consumption totals 3.4 MWh with the
careless-behaviour case and ordinary design while it is
between 0.1 and 0.9 MWh in the other cases.
Energy consumption for heating (including energy
used by the heating coil for heating the inlet air) is
between 0.2 and 0.7 MWh in all the cases considered.
The need for heating energy is lowest with careless
behaviour, because the electrical energy used is convert-
ed into thermal energy in the room.
The energy consumed for cooling comes to 2.6 MWh
in the case of careless behaviour and ordinary design,
while it is 0.2 MWh or less in the other five cases. In two
of the cases, no cooling is needed (that is, there is no
need for a cooling system).
The room temperatures experienced in 1 day (13
March) are presented in Fig. 2 for all the cases. With
careless behaviour and ordinary design temperature, the
room air temperature is 24 °C throughout the day. This
is a result of heat gains from lighting and computer use.
The cooling system keeps the temperature from rising
above 24 °C. No cooling energy is used in the other five
cases, since the temperature does not increase to 24 °C.
The room temperatures are constantly between 21 and
22 °C in all cases with robust design. In most of the
cases, heating energy is needed during certain hours to
keep the room temperature above 21 °C.
Figure 3 highlights the effect of behaviour on total
energy consumption with the two design options simu-
lated. The effect of behaviour on consumption is very
large with the ordinary design but is considerably di-
minished when the robust solutions are applied. A care-
less user consumes 78 % less energy with the robust
design than with the ordinary design.
The total energy costs are low relative to the person-
nel costs of the office work. If an average energy price of
1264
Fig. 1 Yearly energy
consumption of the office,
depending on behaviour (careless,
normal, or conscious) and design
(ordinary or robust)
€130/MWh is assumed, the total cost of energy for a
single-person office is €109–796 per year, depending on
the behaviour style and design.
Additional cases
The effect of climate
Weather data from three European locations were used
to study the effect of climate. Figure 4 shows that the
robust design solutions led to lower total energy con-
sumption compared with the ordinary design in all three
climates. With normal and conscious behaviour, the
robust design solutions provide larger proportional
Fig. 2 Room air temperatures
through a full day of the
simulation (13 March)
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
savings in Italy and Germany than in Finland (Fig. 4,
Table 7).
The effect of window-opening behaviour
The simulations showed that window-opening behaviour
has a minor effect on yearly energy consumption. The
small increase in heating demand and the small decrease
in cooling demand are not visible in Fig. 5. The reasons
behind the minor effect are as follows: the relatively
small difference between the outdoor and indoor temper-
atures during the time when the window was open; and
the small proportion of time when the window was open.
The window was opened for a total of 311 h over the 1-
year simulation period (3.6 % of the time).
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
Fig. 3 Maximum and minimum energy consumption, depending
on the design. The ‘max.’ values refer to careless behaviour and
‘min.’ values to conscious behaviour
The effect of room air temperature set points
The room temperature set points affect cooling- and
heating-energy consumption. Low set points generally
create more demand for cooling, while high set points
create more demand for heating. The effect on total
energy consumption depends on the case; i.e., an in-
crease in the set points may increase or decrease the total
energy consumption; see Fig. 6. The robust design
solutions lead to lower total energy consumption than
Fig. 4 Yearly energy
consumption in different climates.
A northern European location
(Helsinki, Finland) is compared to
central (Frankfurt, Germany) and
southern (Napoli, Italy) European
locations
1265
the ordinary ones with both low and high room temper-
ature set points.
The difference between the cooling and heating set
point has an effect on energy consumption. The total
energy consumption is higher when there is a small
difference (1 °C) between the cooling and heating set
point and lower when the difference is large (5 °C). This
is shown in both ordinary and robust design cases. The
total energy consumption is lower in the robust case
with a set point difference of 1 °C than in the ordinary
case with a set point difference of 5 °C (Fig. 7).
Summary
Table 7 provides an overview of the total energy savings
with the robust design compared with the ordinary de-
sign in all the simulation cases. In all cases, the careless
user consumes 75–79 % less energy if the robust design
solutions, rather than the ordinary design solutions, are
applied. Savings of between 9 and 60 % were achieved
with the robust design in the simulation cases displaying
normal and conscious occupant behaviour.
Discussion
Designing with people in mind
Buildings’ energy systems are often designed such that
their use is demanding from the user perspective.
Occupants must have an understanding of how the
1266 Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270

Table 7 Total energy savings with the robust design compared separately. In the basic case the building is located in Finland,
with the ordinary design in different cases. All three types of the window is non-operable and the room air temperature set
behaviour (careless, normal and conscious) are considered points are as given in Table 2

Careless Normal Conscious

Basic case (Fig. 1) 78 % 26 % 23 %

German climate (Fig. 4)
Italian climate (Fig. 4)
Operable window (Fig. 5)
Low room air temperature
set points (Table 5; Fig. 6)
High room air temperature
set points (Table 5, Fig. 6)
Set point difference of 1 °C
between the cooling and
heating set points
(Table 6, Fig. 7)
Set point difference of 5 °C
between the cooling and
heating set points
(Table 6, Fig. 7)
From 6.12 to 1.32 MWh
79 %
From 6.3 to 1.3 MWh
76 %
From 6.59 to 1.55 MWh
79 %
From 6.11 to 1.30 MWh
75 %
From 6.12 to 1.50 MWh
79 %
From 5.80 to 1.24 MWh
77 %
From 6.29 to 1.42 MWh
79 %
From 5.96 to 1.24 MWh
From 1.14 to 0.84 MWh
45 %
From 1.1 to 0.6 MWh
60 %
From 1.05 to 0.42 MWh
25 %
From 1.12 to 0.85 MWh
42 %
From 1.29 to 0.75 MWh
10 %
From 1.09 to 0.98 MWh
42 %
From 1.58 to 0.91 MWh
22 %
From 1.01 to 0.78 MWh
From 1.08 to 0.84 MWh
41 %
From 1.0 to 0.6 MWh
57 %
From 0.95 to 0.41 MWh
21 %
From 1.07 to 0.85 MWh
38 %
From 1.19 to 0.74 MWh
9%
From 1.07 to 0.98 MWh
39 %
From 1.49 to 0.92 MWh
19 %
From 0.96 to 0.78 MWh

systems work in order to use them properly, and they
have to be motivated to save energy and active in
performing energy-saving actions.
We should not blame office occupants for their behav-
iour, nor is it realistic to suppose that users would devote
much of their valuable time to learning the way in which
the building works. It is best instead to find other ways to
solve the problems. What we can do is develop systems
and devices that have greater usability and are easier to use.
Designers often make optimistic assumptions (e.g.,
Foster and Oreszczyn 2001; Lutzenhiser 1992; Karlsson
et al. 2007); however, a realistic view of occupants’
actions would be advantageous for creation of energy-
efficient buildings.

Fig. 5 Yearly energy

consumption with non-operable
and operable windows. In the lat-
ter case, the window is opened for
3 h in the afternoon if the outdoor
temperature is 10 °C or higher
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270 1267

Fig. 6 Yearly energy

consumption plotted against
different room air temperature set
points. N refers to normal set
points, L to low set points and H
to high set points (see Table 5)

The following strategies should be considered
when one is designing energy systems with people
in mind:
& We cannot assume that people have the knowledge
required for the most appropriate use of the systems.
While they may have the knowledge, we should not
base our designs on that supposition.
& We cannot assume that people are motivated to save
energy in the workplace. Some are, but we should
not make this assumption in our designs.
& We cannot assume that people actively perform
energy-saving actions. While some of them display
this behaviour, we should not base our designs on
the assumption that they do.
It is advantageous to accept the fact that office occu-
pants do not behave optimally. This does not mean that
the aim of modifying occupant behaviour is not impor-
tant. A combination of strategies is necessary for reduc-
ing energy use, and, of course, it is important to find
ways to change occupant behaviour such that people use
less energy.
Personal control and energy use
Should we eliminate the possibility of personal control
when we design solutions that are less sensitive to
occupant behaviour?
It is easy to assume that energy consumption is
greater if people have possibilities for personal control,

Fig. 7 The yearly energy

consumption of the office plotted
against the difference between the
cooling and the heating set point.
Simulations with the set point
difference of 1, 3 and 5 °C were
calculated
1268
including the opportunity to adjust the room temperature
with a thermostat. However, when experts (of HVAC
systems and thermal comfort) were presented with the
statement ‘Allowing occupant control leads to higher
energy use’ at a workshop and asked whether they
agreed or disagreed (Pfafferott and Boerstra 2014), they
had divergent views. It was evident that many factors
affect the influence of personal control on energy con-
sumption, and no general conclusion can be stated.
The simulations performed in the study described
here show—not surprisingly—that energy consumption
is higher when the difference between the cooling and
the heating set point is small and lower when the set
point difference is large (as is shown in Fig. 7). This
means that energy consumption is lower if people can
tolerate a wider range of room temperatures. Those
occupants who show dissatisfaction with a small devia-
tion from the ‘optimal’ temperature and adjust the set
points accordingly use more energy than their counter-
parts who are tolerant of wider range of temperatures. In
short, less tolerant occupants use more energy that the
more tolerant ones.
Several studies have showed that people are more
condition-tolerant if they have control over their ther-
mal environment (Humphreys and Nicol 1998;
Leaman and Bordass 2000; Brager et al. 2004; Luo
et al. 2014): occupants accept a broader range of room
temperatures if they have effective control of the tem-
perature. There is a psychological effect that is impor-
tant to recognise here: thermal comfort is improved if
occupants perceive themselves as having real control
over the temperature. They often do not use the con-
trols frequently, but they are more satisfied with the
thermal environment when they know that they could
adjust the temperature if ‘a crisis of discomfort’ is
reached. If the occupants have no opportunities for
personal control, a small deviation from the tempera-
ture they find optimal may lead to thermal
dissatisfaction.
Personal control does not only improve comfort:
office occupants who feel more control over tempera-
ture have less building-related symptoms (Boerstra et al.
2013).
Accordingly, creating buildings that are less sensitive
to occupant behaviour should not mean eliminating the
possibility of personal control, since personal control
not only improves occupant satisfaction but also in-
creases toleration of existing conditions and thereby
supports conservation of energy.
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
Limitations of the simulations and suggestions for future
work
The purpose of the simulations was to quantify the
effects of occupant behaviour and design strategies on
energy consumption. The simulations were performed
in certain sets of conditions only, and no results are
available for other types of office building designs.
The occupant-behaviour models were greatly simpli-
fied. The office simulated was mechanically ventilated
with a mechanical cooling system. Adjacent rooms were
assumed to have identical thermal conditions, i.e., no
heat transfer between rooms was considered.
Simultaneous heating and cooling may occur in real-
world buildings, but the energy-demand calculations
performed assume that no heating or cooling energy is
used when the temperature is between the cooling and
heating set point.
Future work should study a wider range of robust
technologies in different climates and other conditions.
It would be valuable to know which robust solutions to
choose for specific types of building (either new or
renovated). The current research does not evaluate dif-
ferences in initial costs of robust and ordinary building
techniques. Future studies could include economic cal-
culations for robust solutions compared with ordinary
solutions. These calculations should take into account
both the costs of running the building under the various
solutions and the capital costs of providing those
solutions.
Conclusions
Occupant behaviour has a large effect on energy con-
sumption, but energy systems are often designed with-
out a realistic view of occupants and their behaviour.
The actual behaviour of occupants is often not antici-
pated at the design stage. Energy systems in buildings
are frequently designed in such a way that their use is
demanding from the user perspective. Occupants must
have an understanding of how the systems work in
order to use them properly, and they have to be
motivated to save energy and actively perform energy-
saving tasks.
The effect of occupant behaviour can be diminished
greatly via robust design solutions—solutions that make
buildings less sensitive to occupant behaviour. This
should be taken to refer not to removing opportunities
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
for personal control but to making buildings less de-
manding from the occupant perspective (that is, leaving
less need to learn how buildings work, to be motivated
to save energy, or to perform specific energy-saving
actions).
Acknowledgments The work reported upon here has been sup-
ported by the Indoor Environment Program of RYM Ltd and the
Evidence project funded by the Academy of Finland.
References
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A
review of intervention studies aimed at household energy
conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,
273–291.
ASHRAE. (2009). ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, SI ed.
Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Boerstra, A., Beuker, T., Loomans, M., & Hensen, J. (2013).
Impact of available and perceived control on comfort and
health in European offices. Architectural Science Review, 56,
30–41.
Brager, G. S., Paliaga, G., & de Dear, R. (2004). Operable win-
dows, personal control and occupant control. Ashrae
Transactions, 110, 17–35.
Carrico, A. R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Motivating energy conser-
vation in the workplace: an evaluation of the use of group-
level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 31, 1–13.
Coleman, M. J., Irvine, K. N., Lemon, M., & Shao, L. (2013).
Promoting behaviour change through personalized energy
feedback in offices. Building Research and Information, 41,
637–651.
D2 National Building Code of Finland. (2003). Indoor climate and
ventilation of buildings, regulations and guidelines. Helsinki:
Housing and Building Department, Ministry of the
Environment.
Darby, S. (2001). Making it obvious: designing feedback into
energy consumption. In P. Bertoldi, A. Ricci, & A. de
Almeida (Eds.), Energy efficiency in household appliances
and lighting (pp. 685–696). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Delmas, M. A., & Lessem, N. (2014). Saving power to conserve
your reputation? The effectiveness of private versus public
information. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 67, 353–370.
Drake, P., Welch, P., & Zeisel, J. (1986). The role of occupancy
analysis in diagnosing total building performance. In G.
Davis (Ed.), Building performance: function, preservation,
and rehabilitation. Philadelphia: ASTM American Society
for Testing and Materials.
Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Donnelly, K. A., & Laitner, J. A. (2010).
Advanced metering initiatives and residential feedback pro-
grams: a meta-review for household electricity saving op-
portunities. Washington: American Council for an Energy-
efficient Economy.
1269
Fabi, Andersen, R. V., Corgnati, S., & Olesen, B. W. (2012).
Occupants’ window opening behaviour: a literature review
of factors influencing occupant behaviour and models.
Building and Environment, 58, 188–198.
Faruqui, A., Sergici, S., & Sharif, A. (2010). The impact of
informational feedback on energy consumption—a survey
of the experimental evidence. Energy, 35, 1598–1608.
Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consump-
tion: a tool for saving energy? Energy Efficiency, 1, 79–104.
Foster, M., & Oreszczyn, T. (2001). Occupant control of passive
systems: the use of Venetian blinds. Building and
Environment, 36, 149–155.
Handgraaf, M. J. J., Van Lidth de Jeude, M. A., & Appelt, K. C.
(2013). Public praise vs. private pay: effects of rewards on
energy conservation in the workplace. Ecological
Economics, 86, 86–92.
Herkel, S., Knapp, U., & Pfafferott, J. (2008). Towards a model of
user behaviour regarding the manual control of windows in
office buildings. Building and Environment, 43, 588–600.
Hoes, P., Hensen, J. L. M., Loomans, M. G. L. C., de Vries, B., &
Bourgeois, D. (2009). User behavior in whole building sim-
ulation. Energy and Buildings, 41, 295–302.
Humphreys, M., & Nicol, F. (1998). Understanding the adaptive
approach to thermal comfort. ASHRAE Transactions, 104,
991–1004.
Hunt, D. R. G. (1979). The use of artificial lighting in relation to
daylight levels and occupancy. Building and Environment,
14, 21–33.
Junnila, S. (2007). The potential effect of end-users on energy
conservation in office buildings. Facilities, 25, 329–339.
Karjalainen, S. (2007). The characteristics of usable room tem-
perature. VTT Publications 662. Espoo: VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland.
Karjalainen, S., & Koistinen, O. (2007). User problems with
individual temperature control in offices. Building and
Environment, 42, 2880–2887.
Karjalainen, S., & Vastamäki, R. (2007) Occupants have a false
idea of comfortable summer season temperature. In
Proceedings of Clima 2007 WellBeing Indoors. Helsinki,
Finland.
Karlsson, F., Rohdin, P., & Persson, M.-L. (2007). Measured and
predicted energy demand of a low energy building: important
aspects when using Building Energy Simulation. Building
Services Engineering Research and Technology, 28, 223–
235.
Kempton, W. (1987). Two theories of home heat control. In N.
Quinn & D. C. Holland (Eds.), Cultural models in language
and thought (pp. 222–242). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kempton, W., Feuermann, D., & McGarity, A. E. (1992). BI
always turn it on super^: user decisions about when and
how to operate room air conditioners. Energy and
Buildings, 18, 177–191.
Klein, S. A., Beckman, A., Mitchell, W., & Duffie, A. (2012).
TRNSYS 17, a TRaNsient SYstem Simulation program.
Wisconsin: Solar Energy Laboratory, University of
Wisconsin.
Laine, J., & Saari, M. (1994). METOP, CFC-aineeton
matalaenergiatoimistotalo [METOP, CFC-free low-energy
office building]. Espoo: VTT Valtion teknillinen
tutkimuskeskus.
1270
Leaman, A. (1999) Window seat or aisle? Studies of buildings in
use are showing the importance of personal control of one’s
environment, which includes windows. Architects’ Journal, 3
March 1999.
Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2000). Productivity in buildings: the
‘killer’ variables. In D. Clements-Croome (Ed.), Creating the
productive workplace (pp. 167–191). London: E & FN
SPON.
Leygue, C. (2014). Saving energy in the workplace; why, and for
whom? In Proceeding of Behave Conference. Oxford: Saïd
Business School.
Littleford, T. J., & Ryley, S. K. (2014). Firth, context, control and
the spillover of energy use behaviours between office and
home settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40,
157–166.
Lopes, M. A. R., Antunes, C. H., & Martins, N. (2012). Energy
behaviours as promoters of energy efficiency: a 21st century
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16,
4095–4104.
Luo, M., Cao, B., Zhou, X., Li, M., Zhang, J., Ouyang, Q., & Zhu,
Y. (2014). Can personal control influence human thermal
comfort? A field study in residential buildings in China in
winter. Energy and Buildings, 72, 411–418.
Lutzenhiser, L. (1992). A question of control: alternative patterns
of room air-conditioner use. Energy and Buildings, 18, 193–
200.
Masoso, O. T., & Grobler, L. J. (2010). The dark side of occu-
pants’ behaviour on building energy use. Energy and
Buildings, 42, 173–177.
Mulville, M., Jones, K., & Huebner, G. (2014). The potential for
energy reduction in UK commercial offices through effective
management and behaviour change. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 10, 79–90.
Murtagh, N., Nati, M., Headley, W. R., Gatersleben, B., Gluhak,
A., Imran, M. A., & Uzzell, D. (2013). Individual energy use
and feedback in an office setting: a field trial. Energy Policy,
62, 717–728.
Nicol, J.F. (2001) Characterising occupant behaviour in buildings:
towards a stochastic model of occupant use of windows,
lights, blinds heaters and fans. In Proceedings of Building
Simulation, Seventh International IBPSA Conference (pp.
1073–1078). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., &
Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is
underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 913–923.
O’Brien, W. (2013) Occupant-proof buildings: can we design
buildings that are robust against occupant behaviour? In
13th Conference of International Building Performance
Simulation Association (pp. 1746–1754). Chambéry, France.
O’Brien, W., & Gunay, H. B. (2014). The contextual factors
contributing to occupants’ adaptive comfort behaviors in
offices—a review and proposed modeling framework.
Building and Environment, 77, 77–87.
Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:1257–1270
O’Brien, W., Kapsis, K., & Athienitis, A. K. (2013). Manually-
operated window shade patterns in office buildings: a critical
review. Building and Environment, 60, 319–338.
Orland, B., Ram, N., Lang, D., Houser, K., Kling, N., & Coccia,
M. (2014). Saving energy in an office environment: a serious
game intervention. Energy and Buildings, 74, 43–52.
Palme, M., Isalgué, A., Coch, H., & Serra, R. (2006) Robust
design: a way to control energy use from human behavior
in architectural spaces. In Proceedings of the PLEA
Conference, the 23rd Conference on Passive and Low
Energy Architecture, Geneve, Switzerland.
Pfafferott, J., & Boerstra, A. (2014). Comfort, user behavior and
energy efficiency—summary of a workshop at Windsor
Conference 2014. The REHVA European HVAC Journal,
51, 25–27.
Pigg, S., Ejiers, M., & Reed, J. (1996) Behavioral aspects of
lighting and occupancy sensors in private offices: a case
study of a University Office Building. In: Proceedings of
the 1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings (pp. 8.161–8.171). Pacific Grove, CA.
Rijal, Tuohy, P., Humphreys, M. A., Nicol, J. F., Samuel, A., &
Clarke, J. (2007). Using results from field surveys to predict
the effect of open windows on thermal comfort and energy
use in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 39, 823–836.
Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. B., Dekker, G. B., & Van den Burg, M. T.
C. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption be-
haviour through comparative feedback. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 235–246.
Spence, A., Leygue, C., Bedwell, B., & O’Malley, C. (2014).
Engaging with energy reduction: does a climate change
frame have the potential for achieving broader sustainable
behaviour? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 17–
28.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental
behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.
Van Den Wymelenberg, K. (2012). Patterns of occupant interac-
tion with window blinds: a literature review. Energy and
Buildings, 51, 165–176.
Wang, L., & Greenberg, S. (2015). Window operation and impacts
on building energy consumption. Energy and Buildings, 92,
313–321.
Wargocki, & Seppänen, O. (Eds.). (2006). Indoor climate and
productivity in offices. Rehva guidebook no. 6. Finland:
Rehva.
Webber, C. A., Roberson, J. A., Brown, R. E., Payne, C. T.,
Nordman, B., & Koomey, J. G. (2001). Field surveys of office
equipment operating patterns, LBNL-46930. Berkeley:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Zhang, Y., & Barrett, P. (2012). Factors influencing the occupants’
window opening behaviour in a naturally ventilated office
building. Building and Environment, 50, 125–134.
Zhang, T., Siebers, P., & Aickelin, U. (2011). Modelling electricity
consumption in office buildings: an agent based approach.
Energy and Buildings, 43, 2882–2892.