Search

Low-income households face long-standing challenges of energy insecurity and inequality (EII). During extreme events (e.g., disasters and pandemics) these challenges are especially severe for vulnerable populations reliant on energy for health, education, and well-being. However, many EII studies rarely incorporate the micro- and macro-perspectives of resilience and reliability of energy and internet infrastructure and social-psychological factors. To remedy this gap, we first address the impacts of extreme events on EII among vulnerable populations. Second, we evaluate the driving factors of EII and how they change during disasters. Third, we situate these inequalities within broader energy systems and pinpoint the importance of equitable infrastructure systems by examining infrastructure reliability and resilience and the role of renewable technologies. Then, we consider the factors influencing energy consumption, such as energy practices, socio-psychological factors, and internet access. Finally, we propose interdisciplinary research methods to study these issues during extreme events and provide recommendations.

In recent years, research has emerged to quantitatively and qualitatively understand occupants' interactions with buildings. However, there has been surprisingly little research on building interfaces and how their design, context (e.g., location), and underlying logic impact their usability and occupants’ perceived control, as well as the resulting comfort and energy performance. Research is needed to better understand how occupants interact with building interfaces in both commercial and residential applications; both applications are important to address as there are many differences in interface types, level of control and understanding, and even expectations of engagement. This paper provides a cursory review and discussion of select common building interfaces: windows, window shades/blinds, thermostats, and lighting controls. The goal of this paper is to review literature related to these human-building interfaces to explore interface characteristics, current design and use challenges, and relationships between building interfaces and occupants. Human-building interface interactions are complex, more research is needed to understand design, use, and characteristics. Common themes emerged throughout the literature review to explain occupant interactions (or lack of interactions) with building interfaces, which included thermal and visual comfort, ease and access of control, interface/control placement, poor interface/control design, lack of understanding, and social-behavioral dynamics.

Despite the fact that buildings are designed for occupants in principle, evidence suggests buildings are often uncomfortable compared to the requirements of standards; difficult to control by occupants; and, operated inefficiently with regards to occupants’ preferences and presence. Meanwhile, practitioners –architects, engineers, technology companies, building managers and operators, and policymakers – lack the knowledge, tools, and precedent to design and operate buildings optimally considering the complex and diverse nature of occupants. Building on the success of IEA EBC Annex 66 (“Definition and simulation of occupant behavior in buildings”; 2013–2017), a follow-up IEA EBC Annex 79 (“Occupant-centric building design and operation”; 2018–2023) has been developed to address gaps in knowledge, practice, and technology. Annex 79 involves international researchers from diverse disciplines like engineering, architecture, computer science, psychology, and sociology. Annex 79 and this review paper have four main areas of focus: (1) multi-domain environmental exposure, building interfaces, and human behavior; (2) data-driven occupant modeling strategies and digital tools; (3) occupant-centric building design; and (4) occupant-centric building operation. The objective of this paper is to succinctly report on the leading research of the above topics and articulate the most pressing research needs – planned to be addressed by Annex 79 and beyond.

People's subjective response to any thermal environment is commonly investigated by using rating scales describing the degree of thermal sensation, comfort, and acceptability. Subsequent analyses of results collected in this way rely on the assumption that specific distances between verbal anchors placed on the scale exist and that relationships between verbal anchors from different dimensions that are assessed (e.g. thermal sensation and comfort) do not change. Another inherent assumption is that such scales are independent of the context in which they are used (climate zone, season, etc.). Despite their use worldwide, there is indication that contextual differences influence the way the scales are perceived and therefore question the reliability of the scales’ interpretation. To address this issue, a large international collaborative questionnaire study was conducted in 26 countries, using 21 different languages, which led to a dataset of 8225 questionnaires. Results, analysed by means of robust statistical techniques, revealed that only a subset of the responses are in accordance with the mentioned assumptions. Significant differences appeared between groups of participants in their perception of the scales, both in relation to distances of the anchors and relationships between scales. It was also found that respondents’ interpretations of scales changed with contextual factors, such as climate, season, and language. These findings highlight the need to carefully consider context-dependent factors in interpreting and reporting results from thermal comfort studies or post-occupancy evaluations, as well as to revisit the use of rating scales and the analysis methods used in thermal comfort studies to improve their reliability.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Thermal discomfort is one of the main triggers for occupants interactions with components of the built environment such as adjustments of thermostats and/or opening windows and strongly related to the energy use in buildings. Understanding causes for thermal (dis-)comfort is crucial for design and operation of any type of building. The assessment of human thermal perception through rating scales, for example in post-occupancy studies, has been applied for several decades; however, long-existing assumptions related to these rating scales had been questioned by several researchers. The aim of this study was to gain deeper knowledge on contextual influences on the interpretation of thermal perception scales and their verbal anchors by survey participants. A questionnaire was designed and consequently applied in 21 language versions. These surveys were conducted in 57 cities in 30 countries resulting in a dataset containing responses from 8225 participants. The database offers potential for further analysis in the areas of building design and operation, psycho-physical relationships between human perception and the built environment, and linguistic analyses.

The abbreviated summary is below: Many thermal comfort models are based on the subjective perception of the users in the buildings. The models are created within some limitations and scope. This study aims to contribute to the development of thermal comfort models by comparing the widely used and being developed thermal comfort models with users' actual votes in natural settings. Thermal comfort models were evaluated on the most used religious buildings cases, and suggestions were made for the design and use of religious buildings. For these purposes, thermal comfort measurements were conducted at different zones of prayer areas in churches and mosques in Karlsruhe, Germany. After the events with high participation, a thermal sensation survey was performed on the users. The data were analyzed statistically. According to the results, there are differences between comfort models according to user perception. However, the results of aPMV and ATHB models are closer to user perception than PMV model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bauphysik is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recognizing the value of open-source research databases in advancing the art and science of HVAC, in 2014 the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II project was launched under the leadership of University of California at Berkeley’s Center for the Built Environment and The University of Sydney’s Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Laboratory. The exercise began with a systematic collection and harmonization of raw data from the last two decades of thermal comfort field studies around the world. The ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II (Comfort Database), now an online, open-source database, includes approximately 81,846 complete sets of objective indoor climatic observations with accompanying “right-here-right-now” subjective evaluations by the building occupants who were exposed to them. The database is intended to support diverse inquiries about thermal comfort in field settings. A simple web-based interface to the database enables filtering on multiple criteria, including building typology, occupancy type, subjects’ demographic variables, subjective thermal comfort states, indoor thermal environmental criteria, calculated comfort indices, environmental control criteria and outdoor meteorological information. Furthermore, a web-based interactive thermal comfort visualization tool has been developed that allows end-users to quickly and interactively explore the data.