Determination of acceptable thermal range in outdoor built environments by various methods

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.