Bahareh Bannazadeh, Shahin Heidari, Habib Hadianfard,
Volume 32, Issue 1 (1-2022)
Abstract
Due to the climate change impact, personal thermal comfort (PTC) studies in buildings have been highlighted to reconsider previous results. PTC causes thermal adaptation) physical, physiological, and psychological adaptation (that is the process of acclimatization to different conditions. Thermal comfort is affected by environmental, personal, mental, cognitive, and behavioral criteria. This study was conducted to emphasize the effects of psychological components on PTC in order to improve offices indoor environment quality and reduce energy consumption. In this perspective, cognitive flexibility and resilience have been selected to examine PTC and the ability to accept and choose thermal adaptive strategies based on cognitive characteristics. The research question is: do different cognitive flexibility and resilience level lead to different levels of PTC and conscious/unconscious reaction? To answer this question and calculate comfort temperature, field study was carried out in an office building. The study had two steps: questionnaire and on-site measurements. The questionnaire included an assessment of psychological components, personal components, and thermal responses scales. Environmental components were measured using mobile instruments and the nearest weather station data. A study of 108 participants indicated that cognitive flexibility and resilience had a significant correlation with thermal sensation, thermal comfort, and thermal preferences. So, we can have linear and logistic regression models to predict adaptive behavior, thermal comfort, and thermal preferences based on psychological and personal components. Analysis of comfort temperature using the Griffiths method showed indoor temperature should be 23.7°C for the majority of occupants. We can also be sure that at least two degrees change in indoor temperature is needed to shift occupants’ thermal sensation.
Masoud Shafiei-Dastjerdi, Azadeh Lak, Ali Ghaffari,
Volume 33, Issue 2 (4-2023)
Abstract
One of the main goals of the resilient discourse in the recent urban design literature has been creating resilient places. Urban resilience is defined by the URFs (urban resilience features) for operation and realization in various fields. Due to continuous urban developments, there is a need to revise URFs with a place-based approach. URFs addressed in literature are so diverse that placing them into one single general list creates many contradictions and ambiguities. To reduce or eliminate inconsistencies in the definition of URFs and the qualitative performance of each URF in delivering urban resilience, this paper justifies the key factors for ordering and classifying URFs. In this study, a systematic review of the literature on urban resilience was performed in five stages using the Scopus databases within the 1973-February 2020 period. Then, 16 URFs, using three guidelines based on the corresponding evaluation of place and resilience, were identified and classified into three groups: (1) the intrinsic (internal) characteristics of the constituent components of a resilient system, (2) the behavioral proxies (proactive/reactive) of a resilient system and (3) the resilience-reinforcing attributes of a system in relation to the external environment. This study can shed light on the proper definition of urban resilience and its operational URFs.
