Nicol, F and Roaf, S (2005) Post-occupancy evaluation and field studies of thermal comfort. Building Research & Information, 33(4), pp. 338-346. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive behaviour; building assessment; comfort; indoor environment; occupant perceptions; offices; post-occupancy evaluation; satisfaction; satisficing; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | thermal environment, interaction, thermal comfort, comfort, survey, experiment, occupant perception, indoor environment, post-occupancy evaluation, adaptive behaviour, sustainable development, satisfaction, building assessment, laboratory, field study |
| Subjects: | asset management, research management, occupational health and safety management, environmental engineering, behavioral psychology, research methods, health safety and environment, evaluation methods, project delivery, environmental science, human factors, data collection methods, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Quality Management |
| 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