Humphreys, M A (2005) Quantifying occupant comfort: Are combined indices of the indoor environment practicable? Building Research & Information, 33(4), pp. 317-325. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
What are the various ways in which evaluation of the several aspects of the indoor environment might combine to form an occupant's overall assessment of that environment? Data from an environmental survey of 26 offices in Europe (the Smart Controls and Thermal Comfort, or SCATs, project) are used. These show that dissatisfaction with one or more aspects of the indoor environment does not necessarily produce dissatisfaction with the environment overall. Conversely, satisfaction with one or more environmental aspect does not necessarily produce satisfaction with the total environment. Building occupants balance the good features against the bad to reach their overall assessment. Not all aspects are equally important in this subjective averaging process. Satisfaction with warmth and air quality is more important than satisfaction with the level of lighting or humidity. The relative importance of the various aspects differed from country to country, making it impossible to develop an internationally valid index to rate office environments by means of a single number. The best linear index constructed from the data failed to rank the indoor environments of the buildings in the correct order, as defined by the occupants' overall assessments. It is therefore wise to assess each of the several aspects separately rather than rely only on a combined index.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive behaviour; building assessment; comfort; environmental design; indoor environment; occupant perception; offices; post-occupancy evaluation; satisfaction; satisficing; social convention; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | Europe, indoor environment, building assessment, environmental design, relative importance, post-occupancy evaluation, comfort, sustainable development, humidity, satisfaction, air quality, thermal comfort, adaptive behaviour, survey, occupant perception |
| Subjects: | sustainability and energy, climate science, asset management, human factors, risk assessment, evaluation methods, health safety and environment, occupational health and safety management, environmental engineering, health behaviours and lifestyles, physical geography and landforms, project delivery, environmental science, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Research Practice, Design Practice, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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