Renewable Energy 49 (2013) 44e47

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Thermal comfort conditions in sustainable buildings e Results of a worldwide

survey of users perceptions
George Baird*, Carmeny Field
School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 5 February 2012

The users perceptions of thermal comfort in 36 sustainable commercial and institutional buildings in 11
countries have been investigated. This paper describes and analyses the users overall perceptions of
temperature and of air quality in both summer and winter, and in particular whether they found
conditions hot or cold, stable or variable, still or draughty, dry or humid, fresh or stuffy, or odourless or
smelly. The results from these analyses indicated a good degree of satisfaction with internal thermal
comfort conditions overall. The temperatures and air quality factors of these buildings proved to be
better, on average, than a set of more conventional buildings However, conditions were perceived to be
on the cold side in winter and on the hot side in summer. This indicates that more attention must be
given to these aspects of design and operation.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Thermal comfort
User perception
POE studies
Sustainable buildings

1. Introduction
Over the last decade or so building designers and developers
have been producing sustainable buildings for their more environmentally conscious clients. Many of these buildings have been
highly rated in terms of relevant Building Sustainability Rating
Tools (BSRTs) or have received awards for their low energy design.
In the main, these ratings and awards are based on the building
design and its potential for low energy and sustainable operation,
and their focus tends to be on technical aspects of building design
[1]. Indoor environmental quality is certainly one of these aspects,
but the concern is usually with the provision of comfortable
temperatures and humidities, adequate air quality, sufcient
lighting and appropriate acoustic conditions (all of which are
speciable and measurable).
Our interest has been in how these buildings are performing
from the point of view of the building users. While measurements
of all the physical factors (air and radiant temperatures, humidity,
air movement, clothing insulation and activity levels) would likely
provide insights into the thermal performance of these buildings, at
the end of the day what really matters is whether sustainable
buildings are perceived to be thermally comfortable by their
occupants. Buildings that perform poorly from the users point of
view are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 64 4 463 6231, 64 (0) 21 394433 (mobile);

fax: 64 4 463 6204.
E-mail address: George.Baird@vuw.ac.nz (G. Baird).
0960-1481/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.069

It is only very recently have there been some moves towards

developing BSRTs that assess the environmental quality of the
building once it is in operation. As far as can be ascertained, only
the groundbreaking Indoor Environmental Quality protocol of the
Australian NABERS suite [2] of BSRTs is designed to enable such an
assessment. Not only does it specify a range of physical measurements, it also involves conducting a questionnaire survey of the
building occupants [3]. Two methods are approved for the survey,
one developed by Building Use Studies of London, UK, the other by
the Center for the Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Our aim here, using the Building Use Studies survey
methodology under licence [4], was to determine whether the
occupants of a worldwide set of 36 sustainable buildings found
them to be thermally comfortable.

2. Methodology
For the last ve years the performance in practice of a large
number of commercial and institutional buildings in 11 countries
worldwide has been investigated by Baird [5], to ascertain the
users perception of a range of factors: operational, environmental
(including thermal, acoustic and lighting aspects), personal control,
and satisfaction. This paper is part of a series [6e8] describing
different aspects of the ndings of that research programme. It
focuses on the environmental factors relating to the occupants
perception of thermal comfort, including temperature, air quality
and conditions overall in both summer and winter, as appropriate
to the climate of the building location.

G. Baird, C. Field / Renewable Energy 49 (2013) 44e47

2.1. The buildings

45

2.2. The thermal comfort questions

The buildings surveyed were as follows, by country:

 Australia: 40 Albert Street and 60L, Melbourne; Red Centre and
Institute of Languages, UNSW, Sydney; Student Centre and
General Purposes Building, Newcastle University; Scottsdale
Forest Ecocentre, Tasmania.
 Canada: Computer Science and Engineering, York University;
Liu Institute, University of British Columbia; Toronto
Military Families Resources Centre; National Engineering
Yards, Vancouver.
 Germany: 2006 Science Park, Gelsenkirchen.
 India: Torrent Research Centre, PDEC Buildings and AC Buildings, Ahmedabad.
 Ireland: St Marys Credit Union, Navan.
 Japan: Nikken Sekkei HQ, Tokyo; Tokyo Gas Earthport,
Yokohama.
 Malaysia: Menara UMNO, Penang; MEWC HQ, Putrajaya.
 New Zealand: AUT Akoranga, Auckland; Landcare Research,
Auckland; Erskine Building, University of Canterbury, University of Otago Library, Dunedin; Nelson Library; Universal
College of Learning, Palmerston North; Environment House,
Wellington; Conservation House; Wellington; Paraparaumu
Public Library.
 Singapore: Institute of Technical Education, Bishan.
 UK: Arup Campus, Solihull; City Hall, London; Eden Foundation, St Austell; Gifford Studios, Southhampton; Renewable
Energy Systems HQ, Kings Langley; ZICER Building, University
of East Anglia.
 USA: Natural Resources Defence Council, California; NRG
Systems, Vermont.
These were selected on the basis of their sustainability
credentials. Virtually all of them were recipients of national
awards for sustainable or low energy design or highly rated in
terms of their respective countries building sustainability rating
tool (LEED [9], BREEAM [10], CASBEE [11], Green Star Australia [12]
Green Globes [13], etc) or in some way pioneered green architecture. Of course, willingness on the part of the building owner and
tenants to be surveyed was also an essential prerequisite, and not
all building owners approached felt in a position to accept our
invitation.
Around 2500 staff responded to the questionnaire, the vast
majority scoring every question. Numbers ranged from a low of 13
responses from the small staff group at the Toronto Military
Families Resource Centre to a high of 334 at London City Hall, with
a mean of approximately 70 respondents per building. Most of the
buildings were in temperate climates of one kind or another
(ranging from warm-temperate to cold-temperate). Their systems
of ventilation ranged from full air conditioning, through mixedmode, to natural ventilation.

The Comfort questions on the survey form were introduced

using the following statement:
This section asks how comfortable you nd the building in both
winter and summer.
The questionnaire was then split into winter and summer
sections in which the same set of eight questions was posed under
three main headings:
 Conditions Overall in winter/summer e are they
unsatisfactoryesatisfactory?
 Air in winter/summer e is it stilledraughty; dryehumid;
freshestuffy; odourlessesmelly?
 Temperature
in
winter/summer
e
is
it
uncomfortableecomfortable; too hotetoo cold; stableevaries
during the day?
Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions of each factor
on a 7-point scale. Note that the ideal rating could be 1, 4, or 7,
depending on the scale selected for any particular factor.
3. Results
In this section the results will be presented and analysed, rst
for winter conditions, and then for summer conditions.
3.1. Occupants perceptions of comfort in winter
The scores for each of the eight winter factors are presented
below in Table 1, in terms of their median, mean, and standard
deviation (SD) values for the relevant number (N) of buildings. Also
listed are the ideal scores for each factor and a corresponding
benchmark (BMK) score (based on the average of the previous 50
buildings assessed by BUS at the time of each survey).
Dealing rst with the two factors for which 7 would have
been the ideal score, it can be seen that Temperature
(uncomfortableecomfortable) and Conditions Overall, with means of
4.46 and 4.45 respectively, both scored towards the better side of
the range (i.e., greater than 4, the mid-point of the range) and were
slightly better than the corresponding benchmarks.
For the three factors for which 1 would have been the ideal
score, Air (freshestuffy) and Air (odourlessesmelly), with means of
3.82 and 3.09 respectively, are on the better side of the range (in
this case less than 4, the mid-point of the range); and both were
much better than their benchmark values. In the case of Temperature (stableevaries) the mean score was 4.33, on the worse side of
the mid-point, but still better than the benchmark average of 4.49.
For the three factors for which 4 would have been the ideal
score: Temperature (too hotetoo cold) scored 4.63, well into the cold
range and worse than the benchmark; Air (stilledraughty) at 3.58
was on the still side of ideal, but close to the benchmark; Air

Table 1
Scoring for comfort in winter.
Sub-heading

Factor

Median

Mean

SD

BMK

Ideal

Conditions Overall
Temperature

UnsatisfactoryeSatisfactory
UncomfortableeComfortable
Too hoteToo cold
StableeVaries
StilleDraughty
DryeHumid
FresheStuffy
OdourlesseSmelly

32
32
35
35
35
35
35
35

4.38
4.47
4.67
4.50
3.67
3.32
3.91
3.22

4.45
4.46
4.63
4.33
3.58
3.33
3.82
3.09

0.61
0.64
0.53
0.62
0.62
0.36
0.76
0.64

4.41
4.24
4.37
4.49
3.60
3.19
4.43
3.34

7
7
4
1
4
4
1
1

Air

46

G. Baird, C. Field / Renewable Energy 49 (2013) 44e47

(dryehumid) at 3.33 was on the dry side of ideal and slightly better
than the benchmark.
Table 2 indicates the numbers of buildings with wintertime
average scores less than or greater than 4, the mid-point of the 7point scale, and groups them according to the relevant ideal
score (7, 4, or 1) for ease of interpretation.
It is evident that while most of the buildings are perceived to
have satisfactory wintertime Conditions Overall on average, with
Temperatures on the comfortable side (75% and 78% respectively),
and the majority (94%) are on the odourless side of the
odourlessesmelly scale. Temperatures are perceived to be too cold
(91%) and variable (74%), and the air dry (94%) and on the still side
(71%) in many cases.
3.2. Occupants perceptions of comfort in summer
As before, the scores for each of the eight summer factors are
presented below in Table 3 in terms of their median, mean, and
standard deviation (SD) values for the relevant number (N) of
buildings. Also listed are the ideal scores for each factor and a corresponding benchmark (BMK) score (based on the average of the
previous 50 buildings assessed by BUS at the time of each survey).
Dealing rst with the two factors for which 7 would have
been the ideal score, it can be seen that Temperature
(uncomfortableecomfortable) and Conditions Overall, with means of

4.31 and 4.30 respectively, both scored towards the better side of
the range (i.e., greater than 4, the mid-point of the range) and were
much better than the corresponding benchmarks.
For the three factors for which 1 would have been the ideal
score, the results in summer parallel those in winter to some extent.
Two factors Air (freshestuffy) and Air (odourlessesmelly), with
means of 3.93 and 3.21 respectively, are on the better side of the
range (in this case less than 4, the mid-point of the range); and both
were much better than their benchmark values. In the case of
Temperature (stableevaries) the mean score was 4.28, on the worse
side of the mid-point, but still better than the benchmark average
of 4.40.
For the three factors for which 4 would have been the ideal
score: Temperature (too hotetoo cold) scored 3.46, well into the hot
range; Air (stilledraughty) at 3.31 was on the still side of ideal; while
Air (dryehumid) at 3.73 was on the dry side of ideal. All three were
better than their benchmarks.
Similar to the wintertime data, Table 4 indicates the numbers of
buildings with summertime average scores less than or greater
than 4, the mid-point of the 7-point scale, and groups them
according to the relevant ideal score (7, 4, or 1) for ease of
interpretation.
Slightly fewer of the buildings were perceived to have satisfactory Conditions Overall or Temperatures on the comfortable side of
the relevant scale in summer compared to winter (64% cf 75% and

Table 2
Buildings averaging less or greater than the mid-point of the 7-point scale in winter.
Sub-heading

Factor

Ideal

Conditions Overall
Temperature
Temperature
Air
Air
Temperature
Air
Air

UnsatisfactoryeSatisfactory
UncomfortableeComfortable
Too hoteToo cold
StilleDraughty
DryeHumid
StableeVaries
FresheStuffy
OdourlesseSmelly

7
7
4
4
4
1
1
1

32
32
35
35
35
35
35
35

Number (percentage) of buildings

Less than 4
8
7
3
25
33
9
18
33

Greater than 4
25%
22%
9%
71%
94%
26%
51%
94%

24
25
32
10
2
26
17
2

75%
78%
91%
29%
6%
74%
49%
94%

Table 3
Scoring for comfort in summer.
Sub-heading

Factor

Median

Mean

SD

BMK

Ideal

Conditions Overall
Temperature

UnsatisfactoryeSatisfactory
UncomfortableeComfortable
Too hoteToo cold
StableeVaries
StilleDraughty
DryeHumid
FresheStuffy
OdourlesseSmelly

36
37
37
36
37
37
37
36

4.28
4.41
3.49
4.38
3.34
3.64
4.07
3.33

4.30
4.31
3.46
4.28
3.31
3.73
3.93
3.21

0.81
0.90
0.68
0.48
0.53
0.54
0.80
0.64

3.74
3.85
3.22
4.40
3.11
3.64
4.55
3.51

7
7
4
1
4
4
1
1

Air

Table 4
Buildings averaging less or greater than the mid-point of the 7-point scale in summer.
Sub-heading

Factor

Ideal

Number (percentage) of buildings

Conditions Overall
Temperature
Temperature
Air
Air
Temperature
Air
Air

UnsatisfactoryeSatisfactory
UncomfortableeComfortable
Too hoteToo cold
StilleDraughty
DryeHumid
StableeVaries
FresheStuffy
OdourlesseSmelly

7
7
4
4
4
1
1
1

36
37
37
37
37
36
37
36

13
11
30
32
29
12
17
33

Less than 4

Greater than 4
36%
30%
81%
86%
78%
33%
46%
92%

23
26
7
5
8
24
20
3

64%
70%
19%
14%
2%
67%
54%
8%

G. Baird, C. Field / Renewable Energy 49 (2013) 44e47

Table 5
Median scores comparison of Conventional, Green-intent, and Sustainable Buildings.
Comfort aspect

Conventional

Green-intent

Sustainable

Ideal

Temp in winter
Temp in summer
Air in winter
Air in summer

4.10
3.75
3.85
3.75

4.30
3.67
4.30
3.80

4.47
4.41
4.38
4.28

7
7
7
7

70% cf 78% respectively). Again, the majority (92%) were on the

odourless side of the odourlessesmelly scale. However, a large
percentage was perceived to have Temperatures that were too hot
(81%) and relatively variable (67%), once again with Air on the dry
(78%) and still (86%) sides of their respective scales.
4. Conclusions
Average perception scores for thermal comfort Conditions
Overall in this set of sustainable buildings were well over the midpoint of the 7-point scale in both winter and summer (scoring 4.45
and 4.30 respectively). The winter gure was much the same as the
corresponding benchmark (4.45 cf 4.41), while the summer gure
was signicantly better (4.30 cf 3.74).
As far as Temperatures on the uncomfortableecomfortable scale
were concerned, the average scores also lay above the mid-point
(4.46 in winter: 4.31 in summer) and in both instances above
their respective benchmarks, particularly so in summer. Nevertheless, Temperatures were perceived to be too cold in winter and
too hot in summer, on average. While the summertime scores
represented an improvement over the benchmark, the wintertime
scores came out worse (i.e., colder). The trend was for the
Temperatures to be on the variable side of the stillevaries scale, but
no more so than the benchmark.
In the majority of the buildings, the Air was perceived to be on
the still side of the stilledraughty scale and the odourless side of the
odourlessesmelly scale in both summer and winter. On the
freshestuffy scale, these buildings scored signicantly better than
the benchmarks in both winter and summer on average, though
with around equal numbers of buildings on both sides of the scale.
However, the Air was perceived to be on the dry side in both
seasons, the more so in winter.
A recent analysis by Leaman and Bordass [14] on a larger data set
of 165 buildings in the UK, which included both conventional and in
their parlance, green-intent buildings reported the median scores
for several of these variables. Table 5 compares a selection of the
median scores for these buildings with our set of sustainable
buildings. As can be seen, the sustainable buildings set scores
higher than both the conventional and the green-intent
buildings.
In terms of the eight individual factors that were subject to
assessment, they are perceived to be performing better, on average,
than most the corresponding benchmarks in both summer and
winter. Nevertheless, there is evidently still scope for improvement.
Large numbers of these buildings were perceived to be too cold in

47

winter and too hot in summer indicating much more effort needs to
be put into their design and operation, despite their apparently
outperforming more conventional buildings.
The perceived dryness of the air was also an issue. While this
might have been anticipated for wintertime conditions in
temperate climates, it was a surprise to see so many buildings
where it was also a summertime perception.
While almost equal numbers of buildings were perceived to be
fresh or stuffy in both winter and summer, the air in virtually all of
them was perceived to be on the odourless side of the scale in both
seasons.
Nevertheless designers and potential developers and users of
sustainable buildings should nd encouragement in the fact that
this set of sustainable buildings is performing much better overall
from a thermal comfort point of view by comparison with a set of
conventional buildings.

Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to acknowledge Adrian Leaman for permission to
use the Building Use Studies questionnaire under licence, to thank
all the building owners and designers for their cooperation, and to
express our appreciation to all the building occupants who
responded to the questionnaire. Thanks are also due to Victoria
University for various grants-in-aid to assist this work.

References
[1] Cole RJ. Green buildings e reconciling technological change and occupant
expectations. In: Cole RJ, Lorch R, editors. Buildings, culture and environment.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2003. p. 57 [Chapter 5].
[2] NABERS e see: http://www.nabers.com.au e [accessed 07.04.09].
[3] NABERS indoor environment for ofces e validation protocol for accredited
buildings. Version 3.0. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Department of Environment
and Climate Change; July 2008.
[4] Building Use Studies. Useable buildings. Retrieved February 2010, from
Useable Buildings: http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/; 2009.
[5] Baird G. Sustainable buildings in practice e what the users think. Oxford, UK:
Routledge; 2010.
[6] Baird G, Oosterhoff H. Users perceptions of health in sustainable buildings e
worldwide. In: Proceedings of CIB-W70 international conference in facilities
management, Edinburgh, June 2008; 2008.
[7] Baird G, Christie L, Ferris J, Goguel C, Oosterhoff H. User perceptions and
feedback from the best sustainable buildings in the world. In: Proceedings of
SB08 world sustainable building conference, Melbourne, September 2008;
2008.
[8] Baird G, Lechat S. Users perceptions of personal control of environmental
conditions in sustainable buildings. Architectural Science Review 2009;52.2:
108e16.
[9] U.S Green Building Council. LEED rating systems. Retrieved February 2010,
from U.S Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?
CMSPageID222; 2010.
[10] BREEAM. BREEAM: the environmental assessment method. Retrieved
February 2010, from BREEAM: http://www.breeam.org/; 2009.
[11] CASBEE e see: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/overviewE.htm e
[accessed 11.04.09].
[12] Green Star Australia e see: http://www.gbca.org.au e [accessed 11.04.09].
[13] Green Globes e see: http://www.greenglobes.com e [accessed 21.05.10].
[14] Leaman A, Bordass B. Are users more tolerant of green buildings. Building
Research and Information 2007;35(6):662e73.