Shooshtarian, S and Ridley, I (2016) Determination of acceptable thermal range in outdoor built environments by various methods. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 5(4), pp. 352-371. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose Assessment of outdoor thermal perception in urban spaces is of particular importance due to its financial, social and ecological consequences. Thermal perception includes four elements: thermal sensation votes (TSV), thermal preference (Tpref), overall thermal comfort (Tc) and thermal acceptability (Taccept). Thermal acceptability can offer a benchmark that specifies the acceptable thermal range (ATR), which is useful for urban planners, designers, and bio-meteorologists. ATR, however, can be defined either using direct or indirect measures. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the validity of the indirect measures of ATR, which are most commonly used in outdoor thermal comfort assessments. Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted in the context of Melbourne, which has an oceanic temperate climate (Cfb). Three sites forming RMIT University City Campus (RUCC) were selected as the case studies, which were located in the heart of Melbourne Central Business District. A field survey was conducted in RUCC during three seasons, from November 2014 (Spring) to May 2015 (Autumn), which consisted of concurrent field measurements and questionnaire surveys from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Findings In total, 1,059 valid questionnaires were collected from the three sites of RUCC. The results of comparative analysis between the different measures of ATR determination showed that the various elements of thermal perceptions expressed the users' thermal judgements in different ways. Therefore, it was found that the instruction recommended by the thermal comfort standards on the definition of ATR failed to provide an appropriate estimation of ATR for outdoor built environments. The ATR, defined using TSV, therefore, was revised by the direct measure of thermal acceptability. The resulting range showed broader limits in acceptable thermal conditions in RUCC outdoor spaces users. Lastly, the results suggest that in the absence of directly measured acceptability of thermal conditions in field surveys, overall comfort is the most appropriate indirect measure to use. Originality/value Some indoor thermal comfort studies have used the alternatives for defining ATR. However, as the applicability of these four methods is yet to be fully explored in outdoor conditions with large weather variations, it is valuable to conduct a comparative analysis among these methods. This study also intended to understand the dynamics of comfort range under non-steady and non-uniform outdoor conditions. The resultant outcome has provided information on the relationship between different measures of thermal perceptions. Ultimately, this research aimed to explore the extent to which the indirect measures of acceptability are considered as a reliable source of information compared to the direct measure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | acceptable thermal range; direct and indirect measures; effective urban planning; outdoor thermal comfort; thermal perceptions; thermal preference |
| Index terms: | case study, field-measurement, thermal sensation, estimation, thermal preference, validity, designer, planner, comfort, thermal comfort, built environment, dynamics, heart, outdoor thermal comfort, survey, thermal acceptability, comparative analysis, questionnaire, urban space, variation, methodology, thermal perception, weather, urban planning |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, profession, air quality, urban planning, data analysis and analytics, financial and cost management, medical science and clinical practice, research methods, urban design and public space, contractual condition, occupational health and safety management, building performance, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, environmental engineering |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Governance, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here