This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 08 June 2015, At: 09:50

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Post-occupancy evaluation and field studies of thermal

comfort
a a
Fergus Nicol & Susan Roaf
a
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, School of the Built Environment , Oxford
Brookes University , Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK E-mail:
Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Fergus Nicol & Susan Roaf (2005) Post-occupancy evaluation and field studies of thermal comfort,
Building Research & Information, 33:4, 338-346, DOI: 10.1080/09613210500161885

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210500161885

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2005) 33(4), 338 –346

Post-occupancy evaluation and ¢eld

studies of thermal comfort

Fergus Nicol and Susan Roaf

Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, School of the Built Environment,Oxford Brookes University,
Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
E-mail: jfnicol@brookes.ac.uk
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015

The similarities and differences are explored in both the aims and the methods between post-occupancy evaluations and
field studies of thermal comfort in buildings. The interpretations of the field study results are explored, especially the
ways the results differ from laboratory experiments. Particular attention is drawn to the dynamic nature of the
interaction between buildings and their occupants. Answers to questions of the type used in post-occupancy
evaluations are compared with results from field studies of thermal comfort, and the implications of these findings for
the evaluation of buildings and the conduct of post-occupancy evaluation are explored. Field studies of thermal
comfort have shown that the way in which occupants evaluate the indoor thermal environment is context-dependent
and varies with time. In using occupants as part of the means of measuring buildings, post-occupancy evaluations
should be understood as reflecting the changing nature of the relationship between people, the climate and buildings.
Surveys are therefore measuring a moving target, and close comparisons based on such surveys need to take this in to
account.

Keywords: adaptive behaviour, building assessment, comfort, indoor environment, occupant perceptions, offices,
post-occupancy evaluation, satisfaction, satisficing, sustainable development

L’auteur analyse les similitudes et les différences tant au niveau des objectifs que des méthodes entre les évaluations après
emménagement et les études sur le terrain portant sur le confort thermique des bâtiments. Il examine les interprétations
des résultats des études menées sur le terrain et en particulier la différence entre les résultats et les expériences en
laboratoire. Il attire particulièrement l’attention sur la nature dynamique des interactions entre les bâtiments et leurs
occupants. Les réponses aux questions du type utilisé dans les évaluations après emménagement sont comparées aux
résultats des études menées sur le terrain concernant le confort thermique et l’auteur analyse les incidences de ces
conclusions sur l’évaluation des bâtiments et sur la conduite de l’évaluation après emménagement. Des études menées
sur le terrain et portant sur le confort thermique ont montré que la méthode utilisée par les occupants pour évaluer
l’environnement thermique intérieur dépend du contexte et varie dans le temps. Lorsque l’on utilise les occupants
comme partie des moyens permettant de mesurer les bâtiments, il faut interpréter les évaluations après
emménagement en sachant qu’elles reflètent la nature changeante des relations entre les personnes, le climat et
les bâtiments. Dans ces études, on mesure donc une cible évolutive et les comparaisons rapprochées qui s’appuient sur
de telles études doivent en tenir compte.

Mots clés: comportement adaptatif, évaluation des bâtiments, confort, environnement intérieur, perception des
occupants, bureaux, évaluation après emménagement, satisfaction, satisfaisant, développement durable

Introduction of buildings and the evaluation of what makes

The post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of buildings is energy-efficient and sustainable buildings. Over the
an increasingly important tool for the improvement last 20 years a range of POE methods have been

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210500161885

developed and their systematic application has demon-
strated a huge potential not only to reduce the financial
and environmental costs and impacts of buildings, but
also to improve the quality of life, comfort and pro-
ductivity of building occupants.
The POE will typically include a survey of user satisfac-
tion with the chosen building, an analysis of the energy
use of the building, and information about the physical
and managerial circumstances operating. A detailed
description and evaluation of the Post-Occupancy
Review of Buildings and their Engineering (Probe)
series of post-occupancy studies is given in Lorch
(2001). Whilst new building regulations call for the
energy evaluation of buildings, this will be of limited
value without some idea of user satisfaction. One
concern is how thorough a user survey associated
with a POE needs to be (Leaman and Bordass, 2004;
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
Markus, 2004), but the likelihood that occupant
behaviour will have a bearing on energy efficiency
makes it important to include some measure of user
satisfaction.
Thermal comfort
Thermal comfort for an individual is famously
described by ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 (2004) as
‘that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction
with the thermal environment’. Thermal comfort and
its relationship to the physical environment has been
investigated in two distinct ways. Much of the research
underpinning current thermal comfort Standards such
as ASHRAE 55-2004 was conducted in climate
chambers. These are laboratories in which the physical
characteristics of the subjects’ environment are under
the control of the experimenter. These experiments
have been used to develop indices of comfort such as
predicted mean vote (PMV) (Fanger, 1970), which
underpin current standards for indoor climate and
are based on the theory of steady-state heat balance.
The climate chamber has the advantage of experi-
mental control and has been used to clarify the
relationships between the different components (temp-
erature, humidity, air movement, clothing insulation
and metabolic heat) in the overall thermal balance of
the human body.
Field studies of thermal comfort (FSTC) have been
conducted for many years (an early example is
Bedford, 1936). Most FSTCs are conducted within a
limited context – say a particular building or group
of buildings, often at a single time of year. A number
of researchers have sought to increase the general
applicability of the statistically determined relation-
ships between the subjective and physical data by
choosing a wide population for the survey, by return-
ing to the same population at different times, and by
increasing the number of times a given subject is polled.
Post-occupancy evaluation and ¢eld studies of thermal comfort
An FSTC approaches subjects in their own familiar
environment and dressed to suit their preferences or
circumstances. It has the advantage that it does not
make assumptions about the participating subjects,
but has the limitation that it will often only provide a
description of the participants in the limited circum-
stances of the survey. The FSTC was initially seen as
an alternative to climate chamber studies. Though
limited by the range of conditions that occurred natu-
rally and by the relative inaccuracy in the measurement
of the environment, FSTCs nonetheless had the
advantage of taking place in the subjects’ normal sur-
roundings – and they did not require the expense of
a climate chamber. It was assumed that the basic
physical relationships for thermal comfort would be
the same.
In reality the two methods give results whose
differences are noticeable and in some instances quite
substantial (Humphreys and Nicol, 2002). Part of the
reason for this must be the context of the studies,
which the subjects are occupying – usually a building.
FSTCs incorporate important constraints resulting
from cultural, economic and social influences that
may play a role in determining how a building occu-
pant responds (e.g. an office dress code). Explanations
for the difference have taken a number of detailed
forms: from Brager and de Dear’s (1998) ‘expectation’
to Baker and Standeven’s (1995) ‘adaptive oppor-
tunity’ and Humphreys and Nicol’s (1998) ‘adaptive
principle’. These explanations overlap and augment
each other and the findings that flow from them are
of concern to the relationship between the FSTC and
the POE. The FSTC is influenced on the one hand by
the relatively defined physics and occupant physiology
in the chamber study and on the other hand by the
complexity of climatic, social, economic and cultural
influences that are important to the POE.
Differences between POE and FSTC
One important difference between a POE of a building
and an FSTC is that whereas the former is concerned
with the performance of the building, the latter is
more concerned with the responses to a building (or
other environment such as a vehicle or out of doors)
of its occupants. In the POE, the occupant provides a
subjective measure of a building and acts effectively
as its ‘memory’ (so that questions are in a form such
as ‘how often is the building hot in summer?’)
(Cohen et al., 2001). In the FSTC the occupant
reports on his or her own feelings at the time of the
survey (‘I feel hot now’).
There are other differences that flow from these differ-
ent aims. The POE survey puts less emphasis on
measuring the physical characteristics of the environ-
ment (temperature, noise, light, etc.) at the time of
339
 Nicol and Roaf
the evaluation because the recording of the instan-
taneous physical environment is not the issue so
much as the evaluation of the overall performance of
the building and the impressions of its occupants that
contribute one measure of its success. In the thermal
comfort survey, the physical measurements of the
environment are a key function of the study because
the primary aim of the FSTC is often to inform and
refine models that can be used to predict the subjective
impression of the subject from a knowledge of the
physical environment.
The present paper explores the interface between the
two types of survey and the ways in which they comp-
lement each other and, in particular, the ways in which
the information from FSTCs might be of use in the
design and interpretation of a POE.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
Key issue £owing from FSTC
The driving force behind behavioural reaction is,
according the adaptive principle of Humphreys and
Nicol (1998), thermal discomfort: ‘If a change occurs
such as to produce discomfort, people react in ways
which tend to restore their comfort’. This adaptive
principle provides the unifying backdrop that allows
the results from a number of surveys to be used
together in a meta-analysis of surveys such as those
undertaken by Humphreys (1976, 1978), Auliciems
and de Dear (1986) and de Dear and Brager (1998).
From such meta-analyses and from a series of surveys
designed to investigate particular features of the
relationship, a number of significant generalizations
have been possible.
People adapt to the conditions they normally
experience
This is the principal finding of over 40 years of research
that underpins the adaptive approach (Nicol and
Humphreys, 1973; Humphreys and Nicol, 1998).
Over time the temperature that people find comforta-
ble (the ‘comfort temperature’) is close to the mean
temperature they have experienced (Figure 1). This
implies that the conditions that occupants find comfor-
table are influenced by their thermal experience and
that they can adapt to a wide range of conditions.
Temperatures up to 28C from the comfort temperature
generally give only a minimal rise in discomfort (Nicol
and Humphreys, 2005).
Buildings that are ‘predictable’ and within the subjects’
normal experience therefore tend to be considered
comfortable. However, following the adaptive prin-
ciple and the variability between subjects, deviations
from the ‘normal’ temperature do not always imply
discomfort. Temperature change in buildings can be
the result of occupants’ actions to achieve comfort as
well as the result of factors beyond their control that
340
Figure 1 Relationship between the temperature reported to be
comfortable and the mean temperature from ¢eld surveys
throughout the world. Each point is derived from the results of a
survey showing the calculated comfort temperature and the
mean temperature recorded near the subject. The strong
relationship between the two is the key ¢nding of the adaptive
approach. Data from a variety of sources (Nicol and Humphreys,
2002)
might have the opposite effect. In this case, increased
variability of temperatures (normally assumed to be a
‘bad thing’ in the steady-state heat balance models of
thermal comfort) might actually be increasing, not
reducing, occupant comfort.
Thus, variability in indoor environments may not seem
as bad as might be expected where occupants have
control over the environment as when they have none.
This could help to explain the apparent ‘forgiveness’
(e.g. Leaman and Bordass, 1999) of buildings where
indoor conditions are naturally variable and under
the control of occupants.
Thermal comfort results from a dynamic equilibrium
not a static balance
In the heat-balance approach the prediction of
conditions for thermal comfort is most often presented
as an exercise in physics and physiology. Clearly, the
physiological model has a lot to say about the state
of the body, which in turn will influence the psycho-
logical reaction. However, people’s comfort is not
only a function of their physiology. Because occupants
interact with buildings and building services, these
play a crucial part in the equation. Comfort is the
result of the dynamic interaction between people and
buildings in a particular social context, not a steady-
state fulfilment of the physiological conditions for
thermal comfort. ‘Delight’ (Heschong, 1979) can
result from the sense that the body is moving
towards equilibrium, and is not simply an indication
that equilibrium has been achieved. An important
driver for comfort is always the climate that is never
the same from one minute or hour to the next, and
not always predictable.

Crucial, therefore, to the likely success of any building
in being comfortable are the adaptive opportunities it
provides (Baker and Standeven, 1995). Adaptive
opportunities are those features of the building that
allow the occupants to adapt the environment in the
building to their own requirement or to adapt them-
selves to the building. Thus, they might open a
window, lower a blind or an awning to modify the
indoor temperature, and they may switch on a fan or
cast off a garment to enable them to be comfortable
at a temperature that might otherwise be too hot.
Time is a crucial element in the relationship between
buildings and their occupants
The adaptive principle acts through the building and
the behaviour of subjects. The rate at which the comfort
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
temperature can change is very variable (depending on
the methods used to change it). Some changes (moving
to another building, changing from a summer to a
winter wardrobe) may take place over a noticeable
period; others (taking off a jacket) might happen
almost instantaneously. Because there are various
constraints on adaptation, there is an inbuilt tendency
to under-compensate for change in the short-term, but
over time to achieve more complete adaptation.
Change is natural; stasis is only possible in certain
(generally non-sustainable) circumstances. Humphreys
et al. (1999) demonstrated that the temperature
of one’s fingers is constantly changing. The idea of a
constant, predictable skin temperature may be a
mathematical convenience, but it does not reflect
reality. A number of researchers have shown that
clothing and comfort temperature are a function of
outdoor temperature (e.g. de Dear et al., 1997;
Oseland, 1998; ASHRAE, 2004). Nicol (2000) exam-
ined the evidence and found that predictive power
was improved by relating clothing and comfort temp-
erature to a running mean of the temperature rather
than to its instantaneous value. The relationship is
not precise but the principle seems robust over a
number of studies (cf. McCartney and Nicol, 2002;
Morgan et al., 2002).
Change is also evident in our perceptions of comfort,
not only on the immediate response, but also in the
long-term perception of a building. Nicol and Kessler
(1998) report a study of the success of different
approaches to providing comfort in similar offices in
a building in the Open University in the UK. They
found that whilst in a very hot period an office with
mechanical comfort cooling was preferred, overall a
naturally ventilated office was considered more success-
ful. This finding reflects some of the early studies (Gray
and Corlett, 1952; Black and Milroy, 1962; Loudon
and Keighley, 1964) done in buildings in the UK, and
of many studies since.
Post-occupancy evaluation and ¢eld studies of thermal comfort
The problem of thermal comfort indices
One early goal of thermal comfort studies was to
produce an ‘index’ that will successfully combine
thermal variables (temperature, air velocity, humidity)
with ‘personal variables’ (metabolic rate and clothing
insulation) to produce a combination that will allow
us a prediction of thermal sensation. One such index
is Fanger’s PMV (Fanger, 1970), which underpins
most Standards for thermal comfort. Many of the
field studies undertaken have aimed to produce a
similar ‘index’ based on the statistical analysis of the
subjective and physical data collected. The above dis-
cussion suggests that by including more variables,
such as time and the characteristics of the building, a
‘better’ index might be possible. The problem with
complex indices not only is how to collect the necessary
data, but also that the errors, both in the measurement
of the variables and in the way they are ‘put together’
in the index, tend to be cumulative. The more
complex the index, the more important the errors and
the less the likelihood that the index will be useful as
a predictive tool (Humphreys and Nicol, 2002).
Do comfort surveys tell the same story as
post-occupancy evaluations?
Summer comfort
Two studies that have undertaken user surveys of both
the POE and the FSTC kind were (1) the Engineering
and Physical Sciences Resesarch Council-funded
study of 15 UK buildings, nine in Oxford and six in
Aberdeen, undertaken by the Thermal Comfort Unit,
Oxford Brookes University (McCartney et al., 1998);
and (2) the European Union-funded project ‘Smart
Controls and Thermal Comfort’ (SCATs) (McCartney
and Nicol, 2002) undertaken in five buildings in each
of five European countries: France, Greece, Portugal,
Sweden and the UK. Both projects administered three
types of questionnaire:
. Background questionnaire, which intended to
place the subject in their building context and
was given to all subjects who took part in a
project; it asked questions of the type used in
POE (Figure 2)
. ‘Transverse’ questionnaire, which was adminis-
tered by the researcher on a monthly visit over a
year and which included a number of subjective
questions (Figure 2) and was accompanied by
detailed physical measurements
. ‘Longitudinal’ thermal comfort questionnaire,
which was filled in up to four times a day by a
subset of the transverse subjects; only indoor temp-
erature was measured.
One way to decide whether the POE type of question is
borne out by the FSTC is to compare the results of the
341
 Nicol and Roaf
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
Figure 2 Questions relating to thermal discomfort in three
questionnaires. Responses to the question in the Background
questionnaire are compared in Figures 3 and 4 with the
summertime frequencies of responses ‘warm’ or ‘hot’ in the
Transverse and Longitudinal surveys
Background questions with those from other types of
survey. The answers to the Background ‘POE-type’
question about heat in summer were compared with
the frequency of complaints of subjects feeling hot
in the Transverse and Longitudinal surveys. The form
of the relevant questions is given in Figure 2.
Two analyses of this type were undertaken:
. A number of subjects made substantial individual
record of their comfort votes using the Longitudi-
nal questionnaire (Figure 2). In the SCATS data,
33 subjects (five from France, 15 from Portugal,
seven from Sweden and six from the UK) returned
more than 20 votes in the summer months. The
mean number of votes per subject (N) was 113.
In the UK survey, 64 subjects (42 Oxford, 22
Aberdeen) gave more than 20 summer votes with
mean N ¼ 80. Figure 3 compares the individual
answers to the Background question shown in
Figure 2 with the proportion of time that the
same individual subject actually felt ‘warm’ or
‘hot’ in the summer in the Longitudinal survey.
To facilitate a comparison, the values for UK sub-
jects in Figure 3b are shown in grey. The regression
line is for all subjects.
342
. For each building, the mean value of the answer
to the same Background question is plotted
against the proportion of votes for ‘warm’ and
‘hot’ in the Transverse survey in the summer
months (Figure 4). In Figure 4, the values for air-
conditioned buildings are shown in grey with
shadowing; buildings partially air-conditioned or
which have mixed-mode air-conditioning are
shown in grey without shading.
Figure 3a suggests a significant relationship between
the background response and the incidence of individ-
ual discomfort in summer, and the relationship in
Figure 3b is similar for UK offices (grey markers).
The correlation is very weak in countries other than
the UK. This suggests that whilst the POE-type
question in the Background questionnaire is indicative
of the actual likelihood that there will be discomfort,
this is by no means a hard-and-fast relationship.
Figure 4 indicates that a similar consideration applies
to buildings as to individuals. A close inspection
suggests, however, that, certainly in the case of the
UK (Figure 4a), the distinction is almost entirely
between naturally ventilated buildings (black markers)
and air-conditioned buildings. Similarly, in the Euro-
pean data (Figure 4b), the different building types
occupy distinct (though overlapping) areas of the
graph.
Control and comfort
Another area of overlap between FSTC and POE is the
study about how and why controls are used. The role
of controls in comfort has been observed in the past,
but with the interest in adaptive comfort, there has
been an increasing interest in the way building controls
effect comfort and adaptability. POE-type surveys have
demonstrated the importance of control on the satis-
faction felt by building occupants (Leaman and
Bordass, 1999). The study about what controls are
most effective/useful/important, about how and why
they are used by building occupants, and about how
they might be made more effective must also become
a concern of thermal comfort research.
There is a feeling among some researchers that the
appearance of control is sufficient, and that whether
the control mechanisms actually work is less import-
ant. This fits, in some measure, with the fact that
comfort is a psychological (state of mind) rather than
a physiological phenomenon. However, the psycho-
logy needs to reflect the physiology, and to others it
seems unlikely that the mere appearance of control
will be satisfactory for long or indeed in extreme con-
ditions. Figures 5a and b show for UK and European
subjects the change in mean overall comfort (question
6 in Figure 2) with the number of controls available
from a list of eleven.1 Taking all buildings together,

Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
Figure 3 Relationship between individual ‘background’ vote (see Figure 2) and the proportion of ‘warm’ and ‘hot’ votes by that individual
on the Longitudinal questionnaire: (a) UK subjects and (b) European subjects. (Grey markers are for UK buildings.)
there seems to be little consistent relationship, though
if only naturally ventilated buildings are considered a
small increase in comfort is associated with greater
adaptive opportunity. Nicol and McCartney (1999)
suggest that the mere sum of available controls is not
a good measure of adaptive opportunity and for that
some assessment is necessary of the usefulness of the
control in the particular context. Further work is
needed on this subject.
Discussion
One view of thermal comfort is as ‘the “product”
which is produced and sold to the customer’ (Fanger,
1970, p. 15) by the heating, mechanical ventilation
and air-conditioning (HVAC) industry. The adaptive
approach to thermal comfort suggests that a more
Post-occupancy evaluation and ¢eld studies of thermal comfort
robust description of thermal comfort is as a ‘goal’
(Humphreys, 1995; Shove, 2003). Building occupants
will make themselves comfortable (that is their goal)
if they are given the means (the opportunity) to do
so. Such a description is inherently more sustainable
as it does not seek to specify answers, but only to
provide the necessary character, or context, of a
successful building. A building does not need to be so
tightly specified against such a ‘goal’ as it will be to
achieve success against a tightly prescribed ‘index’.
The relationship will be looser, the building more
flexible and often significantly less energy will be
required to achieve ‘comfort’.
Issues of the security of energy supplies require us
to rethink the 20th-century assumption that air-
conditioning is the best solution to the challenge of
creating indoor comfort. This highlights the future
343
 Nicol and Roaf
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015

Figure 4 Relationship between the mean ‘background’ vote (see Figure 2) in a building and the proportion of summertime ‘warm’ or ‘hot’
votes from all subjects in that building in the Transverse questionnaire: (a) UK subjects and (b) European subjects. Black markers are for
naturally ventilated buildings and grey markers are for air-conditioned buildings.

potential need to be able to run buildings without
mechanical heating or cooling during periods of
energy outages, a factor that will increasingly influence
the way the indoor environment of buildings is
conditioned over the next decades. This point
reinforces the influence of geopolitical factors on the
way the design of buildings is approached, and the
need for an adaptive approach to their design (Roaf
et al., 2004).
Conclusions
The science of thermal comfort defines the reproduci-
bility of the human as a ‘thermometer’ of comfort.
The POE typically uses this human characteristic as
one dimension of its evaluation of a building. FSTC
344
have shown that the way in which occupants evaluate
the indoor thermal environment is context dependent
and varies with time. Figures 3 and 4 suggest that
there is a danger in accepting occupant memory of
the performance of a building unconditionally.
Whilst the question about summertime temperature
in Figure 2 can distinguish between buildings with
and without air-conditioning, it is less reliable at
distinguishing between good and bad naturally
ventilated buildings (Figure 4). The evidence shown
in Figure 3a from the UK is that individuals can
‘remember’ their own discomfort. In Figure 3b, with
a wider variety of subjects, the relationship is not
strong.
Occupant attitudes to their building can change
with the prevailing conditions, so if a survey is

Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
Figure 5 Relationship between the mean number of controls reported available in a building from the Background questionnaire and the
mean overall comfort vote from all subjects in that building in theTransverse questionnaire: (a) UK subjects and (b) European subjects
conducted in extreme conditions, then this might
produce unrepresentative responses from the building
occupants.
Thermal comfort is a goal of building occupants and
not merely a product of the building services, although
the building services may provide part of the means
by which the goal is achieved. Buildings and their
occupants interact continually and the relationship
between them is dynamic. By using occupants as part
of the means of measuring buildings, those who
conduct POEs should understand the changing nature
of the relationship between people, the climate and
buildings. Surveys are therefore measuring a moving
target, and close comparisons based on such surveys
need to take this into account. This observation has
Post-occupancy evaluation and ¢eld studies of thermal comfort
profound implications for the reproducibility of
survey results.
More research is needed on the way people use
building controls. The evidence shown in Figure 5,
taken together with the findings of other researchers,
suggests that the role of access to controls in producing
satisfactory buildings needs further research.
References
ASHRAE (2004) Standard 55-04 Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human Occupancy, American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers,
Atlanta, GA.
Auliciems, A. and de Dear, R. (1986) Air conditioning in Austra-
lia I; Human thermal factors. Architectural Science Review,
29, 67–75.
345
 Nicol and Roaf
Baker, N.V. and Standeven, M.A. (1995) A behavioural approach
to thermal comfort assessment in naturally ventilated build-
ings, in Proceedings of the ‘CIBSE National Conference’,
Eastbourne, UK, Chartered Institute of Building Services
Engineers, London. pp. 76–84.
Bedford, T. (1936) The Warmth Factor in Comfort At Work.
MRC Industrial Health Board Report No. 76, HMSO,
London.
Black, F. and Milroy, E. (1966) Experience of air-conditioning in
offices. Journal of the Institute of Heating and Ventilating
Engineers, September, 188–196.
Brager, G.S. and de Dear, R.J. (1998) Thermal adaptation in the
built environment: a literature review. Energy and Buildings,
V.27(1), 83– 96.
Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, B. and Leaman, A. (2001)
Assessing building performance in use. 1: The Probe
process. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 85–102.
de Dear, R. and Brager, G. (1998) Developing and adaptive
model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Trans-
actions, 104(1), 145– 167.
de Dear, R., Brager, G. and Cooper, D. (1997) Developing an
Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and Preference. Final
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:50 08 June 2015
Report ASHRAE RP-884, American Society of Heating
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.
Fanger, P.O. (1970) Thermal Comfort, Danish Technical Press,
Copenhagen.
Gray, P.G. and Corlett, T. (1952) A survey of lighting in offices,
in Postwar Building Research No. 30, HMSO, London,
appx 1.
Heschong, L. (1979) Thermal Delight in Architecture, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Humphreys, M.A. (1976) Field studies of thermal comfort
compared and applied. Journal of the Institute of Heating
and Ventilation Engineering, 44(1), 5– 27.
Humphreys, M.A. (1978) Outdoor temperatures and comfort
indoors. Building Research and Practice, 6(2), 92–105.
Humphreys, M.A. (1995) Thermal comfort temperatures and
the habits of Hobbits, in J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys,
O. Sykes and S. Roaf (eds): Standards for Thermal Comfort,
E&FN Spon, London, pp. 3 –13.
Humphreys, M.A. and Nicol, J.F. (1998) Understanding the
adaptive approach to thermal comfort. ASHRAE Trans-
actions, 104(1), 991– 1004.
Humphreys, M.A. and Nicol, J.F. (2002) The validity of ISO-
PMV for predicting comfort votes in every-day life. Energy
and Buildings, 34(6), 667–684.
Humphreys, M.A., McCartney, K.J., Nicol, F. and Raja, I.A.
(1999) An analysis of some observations of the finger
temperature and thermal comfort of office workers, in Pro-
ceedings of the ‘8th International Conference on Indoor
Air Quality and Climate (Indoor Air 99)’, Edinburgh, UK.
Leaman, A.J. and Bordass, W.T. (1999) Productivity in buildings:
the ‘killer’ variables. Building Research & Information,
27(1), 4 –19.
Leaman, A.J. and Bordass, W.T. (2004) Streamlining survey tech-
niques, in Proceedings of ‘Closing the Loop, Post-Occupancy
Evaluation: The Next Steps’ Conference, 19 April–2 May
2004, Windsor, UK, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
Lorch, R. (ed.) (2001) Special issue on ‘Post-Occupancy
Evaluation’, Building Research & Information, 29(2),
79–174.
346
Loudon, F.J. and Keighley, E.C. (1964). User research in office
design. Architect’s Journal, 139(6), 333–339.
Markus, T. (2004) How dirty can you get?, in Proceedings of
‘Closing the Loop, Post-Occupancy Evaluation: The Next
Steps’ Conference, 19 April–2 May 2004, Windsor, UK,
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
McCartney K.J. and Nicol J.F. (2002) Developing an adaptive
control algorithm for Europe: results of the SCATs Project.
Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 623–635.
McCartney, K.J., Nicol, J.F. and Stevens, S. (1998) Comfort in
office buildings: results from field studies and presentation
of the revised adaptive control algorithm, in Proceedings of
the ‘CIBSE National Conference’, Bournemouth, UK, Char-
tered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.
Morgan, C.A., de Dear, R. and Brager, G. (2002) Climate cloth-
ing and adaptation in the built environment, in H. Levin
(ed.): ‘Indoor Air 2002’, Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Santa Cruz,
CA, USA, Vol. 5, pp. 98–103.
Nicol, J.F. (2000) Time and thermal comfort, evidence from the
field, in A.A.M. Sayigh (ed.): Renewables: The Energy for
the 21st Century, WREC VI, Brighton, UK, Pergamon,
Oxford, Vol. 1 pp. 477–482.
Nicol, J.F. and Humphreys, M.A. (1973) Thermal comfort as
part of a self-regulating system. Building Research and
Practice, 6(3), 191 –197.
Nicol, J.F. and Humphreys, M.A. (2002) Adaptive thermal
comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings.
Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 563–572.
Nicol, J.F. and Humphreys, M.A. (2005) Maximum temperatures
in buildings to avoid heat discomfort, in M. Santamouris
(ed.): Proceedings of the ‘Passive and Low Energy Cooling
(Palenc)’ Conference, Santorini, Greece, 19– 21 May,
Heliotopos Conferences Ltd, Athens, Greece, Vol. 1, pp.
219–224.
Nicol, J.F. and Kessler, M.R.B. (1998) Perception of comfort in
relation to weather and indoor adaptive opportunities.
ASHRAE Transactions, 104(1), 1005–1017.
Nicol, J.F. and McCartney, K.J. (1999) Assessing adaptive
opportunities in buildings, in Engineering in the 21st
Century — The Changing World, Chartered Institution of
Building Services Engineers, London, pp. 219–229.
Oseland, N. (1998) Acceptable temperature ranges in air
conditioned and naturally ventilated buildings. ASHRAE
Transactions, 104(1), 50–62.
Roaf, S., Crichton, D. and Nicol, F. (2004) Adapting Buildings
and Cities for Climate Change, Architectural Press, Oxford.
Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience, Oxford,
Berg.
Endnote
1
(1) Open or close a window, (2) adjust curtains or a blind, (3)
open or close an internal door, (4) open or close an external
door, (5) adjust a thermostat, (6) adjust a local heater/radiator,
(7) turn lighting on or off (your desk only), (8) turn office lighting
on or off, (9) adjust the office lighting level (dimmer switch), (10)
adjust office air-conditioning and (11) adjust a local fan/air
outlet.