Figure 1
Field study protocol for the winter and summer campaigns, including instruments, data streams, and timing (questionnaires, monitoring, and interviews).
Figure 2
Front elevation and scaled plans of dwellings 1 and 2, and the personal comfort systems (PCS) used in the study.
Note: (a) Natural gas stove; (b) electrical warm air blower; (c) electric blanket (added for the study); (d) small personal fan (148 mm diameter, 4 W) (added for the study); and (e) large pedestal fan (415 mm diameter, 30 W) (added for the study).
Figure 3
Indoor and outdoor temperatures during winter (a, c) and summer (b, d).
Note: Median temperature is shown within the dotted lines (c, d).
Figure 4
Thermal sensation and preference reported during winter and summer.
Note: In winter, 66% of responses were on the cold side (a) and comfort (‘No change’) averaged 35% (b). In summer, 74% felt warm or hot (c), with only 25% reporting comfort (d). In both seasons, most participants desired a different thermal environment.
Figure 5
Thermal preference equal to ‘No change’ and its related indoor temperatures in winter and summer.
Note: Median votes were 17.8°C in winter (interquartile range (IQR) = 16.3–19.6°C) and 27.3°C in summer (IQR = 24.2–30.5°C).
Figure 6
Recorded use of the personal comfort systems (PCS) by each participant and the substantial variation in individual preferences (a).
Note: The relationship between PCS use and thermal comfort, operationalized as thermal preference ‘No change,’ is illustrated in (b) winter and (c) summer, showing a higher proportion of ‘No change’ votes when PCS were reported as in use, with a more consistent increase in summer. When examining specific temperature ranges, (d) 15.0–19.9°C, (e) 20.0–24.9°C, and (f) 25.0–29.9°C, PCS appear to be most beneficial under thermally uncomfortable conditions.