4.1. Adaptive Thermal Comfort
After extracting the data from the EPW file of the Lahore (Pakistan) weather station from Climate.OneBuilding.Org, it was uploaded to the CLIMA tool. The obtained data were then compared with the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II using the proposed methodology. The resulting measurements and comparisons are outlined in
Figure 7.
The left side of the graph in
Figure 7 illustrates the variation in daytime dry bulb temperatures in the Lahore region over the course of a year. The vertical axis represents the temperature in degrees Celsius, while the horizontal axis represents time in years. From the graph, we can observe that the highest recorded temperature during the year is 45 °C, while the lowest recorded temperature is 1 °C. These values represent the extreme points on the graph. To better understand the overall temperature trend, we can look at the measures of central tendency. The mean temperature, which is the average of all the temperature values on the graph, is calculated to be 26.55 °C.
The mean is influenced by extreme values, so, in this case, it considers both the high and low temperature extremes. Another measure we can consider is the median temperature, which is the middle value when all the temperature values are arranged in ascending order. In this case, the median temperature is 28 °C. Unlike the mean, the median is not affected by extreme values, providing a representation of the temperature that is more typical or representative of the data. Additionally, we can examine the quartiles of the data. The first quartile, denoted as Q1, is 20 °C, indicating that 25% of the temperature readings on the graph fall below this value. It represents the boundary between the lowest 25% of the data and the upper 75%. On the other hand, the third quartile, denoted as Q3, is 33 °C, representing the boundary between the lowest 75% of the data and the upper 25%. In other words, 75% of the temperature readings on the graph fall below this value.
Based on the analysis of daytime dry bulb temperature data in the Lahore region indicates that extreme temperatures are prevalent, with a recorded high of 45 °C and a low of 1 °C. However, the measures of central tendency, such as the mean temperature of 26.55 °C and the median temperature of 28 °C, suggest that the overall temperature trend is moderately warm. This raises the question of whether the extreme temperature values are outliers or if they represent a significant climatic event. Further investigation into the factors influencing temperature extremes in this region is warranted to better understand their implications for local climate patterns and potential impacts on human activities and ecosystems.
The right side of the graph in
Figure 7 illustrates the nighttime dry bulb temperatures in Lahore throughout the year. The
y-axis represents the temperature in degrees Celsius, while the
x-axis represents the time in years. Upon closer examination of the graph, it becomes evident that the highest recorded nighttime temperature throughout the year is 42 °C, whereas the lowest recorded temperature is 2 °C. To gain insights into the typical temperature characteristics, we can analyze the measures of central tendency. The mean temperature, calculated by summing all the temperature values on the graph and dividing them by the total number of values, is determined to be 22.0 °C.
The mean is influenced by extreme values, considering both the highest and lowest temperature points. In contrast, the median temperature, which represents the middle value when the temperature values are arranged in ascending order, is found to be 24 °C. Unlike the mean, the median is not influenced by extreme values and provides a representation of the central or typical temperature reading. Furthermore, we can explore the quartiles of the data. The first quartile, denoted as Q
1, has a value of 15.5 °C, indicating that 25% of the temperature readings fall below this value. Q
1 marks the boundary between the lowest 25% of the data and the upper 75%. On the other hand, the third quartile, denoted as Q
3, has a value of 29 °C, signifying that 75% of the temperature readings fall below this value. Q
3 represents the boundary between the lowest 75% of the data and the upper 25%. This prompts the question of whether the extreme temperature values are exceptional events or if they reflect noteworthy nocturnal climatic patterns. By considering these statistical measures, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the day and nighttime temperature distribution and trends in the Lahore region throughout the year, as shown in
Table 10.
In Lahore, the dry bulb temperature exhibits variations throughout the year, as shown in
Table 10 and the accompanying graphs. The data highlights that the temperature range within which people feel comfortable thermally is between 18 °C and 24 °C. During the winter season (December, January, and February), individuals may experience a slight sensation of cold. Conversely, from May to September, which corresponds to the summer season, the temperature exceeds 40 °C, significantly surpassing the ASHRAE adaptive comfort limit of 24.5 °C. This raises concerns about the impact of these extreme temperatures on human health, well-being, and productivity, as well as the potential implications for energy consumption and the need for adaptive measures in buildings and urban planning.
In
Figure 8, along the
x-axis, outdoor relative humidity is depicted, while age is represented on the
y-axis. In the context of a figure comparing outdoor relative humidity and age, the circle’s dimensions symbolize the population count within each age category corresponding to the given humidity level. The plot reveals a discernible positive correlation between outdoor relative humidity and age. This inference implies that, as outdoor relative humidity escalates, there is a concurrent elevation in the average age of the populace. This trend can be attributed to the heightened vulnerability of older individuals to humidity-induced effects, encompassing health challenges like heat-related ailments and respiratory issues.
In an overarching analysis, the plot substantiates the existence of a moderate correlation between outdoor relative humidity and age, predominantly owing to the increased susceptibility of older demographics to humidity-related implications. It is noteworthy that the climatic range considered comfortable for this locale falls within the 40% to 60% humidity threshold. Upon closer scrutiny of the bubbles, it is evident that a substantial majority of observations fall within this comfortable humidity range, depicted as the shaded gray segment within the visualization, accompanied by a few outliers. The visualization exhibits numerous sizable bubbles aligning with age points spanning from 40 to 60 years and outdoor relative humidity ranging between 40% and 60%. This indicates a notable concentration of individuals within the 40–60 age bracket experiencing relative humidity levels within the 40–60% range [
65].
The presented
Figure 8 highlights a notable positive correlation between outdoor relative humidity and age. This suggests that elevated humidity levels coincide with an increase in the average age of the population. This relationship can be logically attributed to the heightened susceptibility of older individuals to health issues arising from humidity, such as heat-related ailments and respiratory concerns. The visualization further emphasizes that a significant portion of the population falls within the accepted comfortable humidity range of 40% to 60%, as indicated by the prominent gray shading in the plot. Nonetheless, the presence of a few outliers necessitates a more in-depth exploration into potential factors contributing to these deviations from the observed trend. Moreover, the clustering of larger bubbles around the age range of 40 to 60 and within the 40–60% humidity bracket indicates a substantial demographic of individuals aged 40 to 60 years who are exposed to humidity levels falling within the comfort range. This comprehensive analysis encourages a consideration of the intricate interplay among age, humidity, and associated health implications. It is important to acknowledge the significance of these outliers, as they may introduce complexities to the established correlation.
The presented graph in
Figure 9 depicts the annual variation in relative humidity in Lahore. It showcases the monthly distribution of humidity levels throughout the year, with the vertical axis representing the percentage of relative humidity and the horizontal axis indicating the months from January to December. The graph highlights that the recorded maximum humidity value reaches 100%, while the minimum value stands at 16%. Notably, the graph incorporates distinct color schemes: the gray section represents the range of humidity considered comfortable, the blue color denotes the overall range of relative humidity, and the sky-blue shade indicates the average relative humidity for the region over the year. The graph suggests that relative humidity becomes a significant concern for individuals, particularly from July to October, posing challenges for indoor comfort. These findings raise important questions about the impact of high humidity levels on human health, comfort, and productivity, as well as the need for effective indoor humidity control strategies and building design considerations.
This graph in
Figure 10 is a psychometric chart [
66], illustrating the characteristics of the case study location. It visualizes the relationship between temperature and humidity ratio. The
y-axis represents the humidity ratio measured in grams of water per kilogram of air, while the
x-axis represents temperature in degrees Celsius. The chart also includes a color-coded band indicating different temperature ranges.
When examining the graph from left to right, it shows a progression from low sensible heat to high sensible heat, indicating an increase in temperature. Moving from bottom to top on the graph signifies an increase in absolute humidity or humidity ratio, reflecting a higher amount of moisture in the air per kilogram of dry air.
Based on the data points on the graph, we can infer that when the temperature is kept constant, the humidity ratio in the air also increases, and vice versa. The blue dots on the graph represent the winter season, with maximum temperatures around 17–18 °C, while the red and yellow dots correspond to the summer season, characterized by maximum temperatures reaching approximately 45 °C in the specific case study location. These results pose important questions about the impact of temperature and humidity ratio variations on indoor thermal comfort and energy efficiency. This research argument revolves around exploring effective strategies for managing temperature and humidity levels within indoor environments, particularly during the summer season with extreme temperatures.
The bar chart represented in
Figure 11 shows the annual natural ventilation [
67] levels at the case study location. The
x-axis represents the months of the year, ranging from January to December, while the
y-axis displays the percentage of natural ventilation. Analysis of the graph reveals a concerning issue from May to September, where there is a significant decrease in natural ventilation. Consequently, these months pose significant challenges for indoor occupants, as there is minimal airflow, and it becomes increasingly uncomfortable to stay indoors during this period. The discovery suggests that there is limited air movement during these months, creating difficulties for individuals indoors in terms of IAQ, thermal comfort, and general wellness. This highlights the importance of additional research to explore the specific factors that contribute to reduced natural ventilation during this period, including weather patterns, building design [
68] and orientation, and potential obstacles to airflow. Understanding the causes and consequences of diminished natural ventilation is essential for developing effective approaches to improve IAQ and comfort, address potential health risks associated with inadequate ventilation, and optimize energy-efficient ventilation systems in buildings within the studied location.
This chart displayed in
Figure 12 is the distribution of thermal stress based on Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) [
62,
63] throughout the year. The
x-axis represents the months from January to December, while the
y-axis shows the percentage of thermal stress distribution. Different colors in the color-coded band indicate various levels of thermal stress, with maroon indicating extreme heat stress. Upon closer examination of the graph, it becomes evident that, from April to October, there is a significant prevalence of extreme or very strong heat stress. This poses a high risk of heat stroke for occupants staying indoors during these months. Additionally, the chart reveals a concerning pattern of minimal or negligible no thermal stress, indicating a challenging situation at the case study location. These findings bring up crucial inquiries concerning the consequences of long-term exposure to extreme heat stress on human well-being, productivity, and overall quality of life. It is imperative to examine the factors that contribute to the high occurrence of extreme heat stress, including local climate conditions, urban heat island effects, building design, and indoor heat mitigation strategies. Moreover, exploring effective adaptation measures, such as thermal insulation, shading techniques, and active cooling systems, becomes essential for enhancing indoor thermal comfort, minimizing the risk of heat-related illnesses, and bolstering the resilience of individuals and communities in the studied location.
This illustration portrayed in
Figure 13 depicts the interrelation between the duration of residency and the outdoor heat stress index. Each bubble within the plot corresponds to an individual, with its size indicative of the person’s outdoor heat stress index. The horizontal axis represents the outdoor heat stress index, while the vertical axis denotes the length of an individual’s residency in the area. The distinctive linear configuration of the figure signifies a direct association between the length of residency and the outdoor heat stress index. This alignment denotes a positive correlation, where an increase in the length of residency is concurrent with a rise in the outdoor heat stress index. This correlation can be attributed to the prolonged exposure of long-term residents to heat stress, potentially leading to a lower level of acclimatization as compared to those who have recently moved to the area.
The visual representation designates a gray segment within the plot, signifying a comfort zone in terms of outdoor heat stress and duration of residency. Upon closer examination of the plot, it is evident that the bubbles adhere to a shared trajectory, yet the outdoor heat stress index demonstrates an ascending trend. This observation indicates a consistent elevation in the outdoor heat stress index across all individuals, irrespective of their length of residency. Plausible explanations for this phenomenon encompass factors such as an increasingly warmer climate, greater occupational exposure to outdoor conditions, or limited access to cooling amenities.
Figure 13 visualizes the relationship between length of residency and outdoor heat stress index. The linear shape of the plot suggests a positive correlation, indicating that longer residency is associated with higher outdoor heat stress index. This alignment of bubble sizes with the length of residency underscores the notion that individuals who have lived in the area longer tend to experience greater heat stress. However, the observation that all bubbles lie along the same line while the outdoor heat stress index varies suggests that there is a universal increase in heat stress, regardless of residency duration. This could be attributed to broader environmental factors like climate change or societal changes such as increased outdoor work. The shaded comfort zone serves as a valuable benchmark for assessing the extent of heat stress experienced by residents. Further analysis could delve into specific contributing factors that might be driving the uniform rise in heat stress despite differing lengths of residency, considering variables such as urbanization, infrastructure development, and adaptive strategies to cope with rising temperatures.
Figure 14 depicts as a visual representation of outcomes derived from a meta-analysis, illustrating the effects of an intervention across various individual studies. The focal point of analysis is the occupants’ thermal sensation vote (TSV), a metric reflecting individuals’ comfort levels within a given environment. The study’s focus revolves around the influence of outdoor environmental temperature (OET) on this thermal sensation. Within the plot, each square corresponds to an individual study, and its size is proportionate to the study’s weight, signifying its impact on the aggregate outcome. Enclosed within each square is a horizontal line that signifies the OET’s impact on TSV within that particular study. Vertical lines extending from the horizontal lines indicate the confidence intervals for these effects. Notably, the diamond-shaped region within the plot symbolizes the collective effect size, a consolidation of outcomes from all studies. The horizontal lines encompassing this diamond signify the confidence interval for the overall effect size.
Observing the findings, the aggregate effect size presents a positive inclination. This suggests a positive correlation between higher OET and elevated TSV, implying increased comfort levels as outdoor temperatures rise. However, the wide span of the confidence interval suggests inherent uncertainty, leaving room for the true effect size to potentially lean either positively or negatively. The positioning of the estimate in relation to the zero-effect line is pivotal. Specifically, if the estimate rests to the left of this line, it indicates a sensation of warmth among the analyzed individuals. Conversely, positioning to the right signals a perception of heat. In the context of this plot, the comprehensive 95% confidence interval for the effect size spans from −0.5 to 0.66. Notably, this interval is skewed toward the warm side, underscoring that individuals within this climatic context tend to experience heightened warmth as outdoor temperatures increase. Moreover, the study’s design reveals that the perceived level of heat remains consistent between day and night. This insight underscores a minimal disparity between outdoor air temperatures during daytime and night-time hours in this specific climate.
The analysis involves a thorough evaluation of a meta-analysis on the relationship between outdoor temperature and occupants’ thermal comfort ratings. The overall findings suggest a positive link between higher outdoor temperatures and more favorable thermal comfort. However, the wide confidence interval highlights uncertainty. The observed positive effect within this range indicates increased comfort with higher temperatures, but the possibility of a contrary effect should be considered. The symmetric distribution of the confidence interval around the null point suggests potential for heightened warmth perception with rising outdoor temperatures. Contextual factors like humidity, clothing choices, and individual preferences should be carefully considered. The consistent warmth perception regardless of time of day emphasizes the need to explore local climate, building design, and adaptive behaviors. Overall, recognizing the complexity of thermal comfort perception and acknowledging study limitations is crucial.
The dataset referenced in citation [
57] pertains to Famagusta in Cyprus. Its applicability to regions within Pakistan is grounded in the similarity of climatic conditions, specifically characterized by hot and humid weather.
4.2. Obtained Datasets from ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II
The box plot in
Figure 15 represents the distribution of indoor air temperature in various settings such as houses, classrooms, and offices, based on different conditioning methods: air conditioning, mixed mode, and natural ventilation. The focus of the analysis is on the occupants’ comfort level.
Upon examining the box plot, it becomes evident that the dataset contains numerous outliers, indicating some extreme temperature values that deviate from the norm. Additionally, when considering the average temperature, it is noticeable that the lower quartile is closer to the mean than the upper quartile, suggesting a positive skew in the data distribution. This skewness is further supported by the length of the upper whisker being longer than the lower whisker [
69,
70,
71]. Most of the data points fall within the range of 23 °C to 27 °C, indicating that most indoor environments are maintained within this temperature range to ensure comfort for the occupants while using these conditioning types.
These findings prompt significant inquiries concerning the efficiency of various methods for achieving and sustaining thermal comfort. It is vital to investigate the factors that contribute to the occurrence of extreme temperature values and outliers, including variations in building design, equipment efficiency, occupant behavior, and control systems. Additionally, exploring strategies to enhance temperature control and thermal comfort, such as optimizing conditioning systems, employing energy-efficient design principles, and adopting occupant-centered approaches, becomes essential. These efforts aim to improve the overall indoor comfort experience and well-being of occupants across different environments.
This box plot in
Figure 16 visualizes the distribution of predicted mean vote (PMV) [
72] values in houses, classrooms, and offices, considering different types of conditioning methods: air conditioning, mixed mode, and natural ventilation. The main objective is to examine the comfort level experienced by occupants in these settings.
Upon analyzing the box plot, it becomes apparent that the dataset contains outliers, indicating the presence of a few PMV values that significantly deviate from the overall trend. When looking at the central tendency of the data, we observe that the mean is positioned equidistant from both the lower and upper quartiles, suggesting a symmetrical distribution. This symmetry is further supported by the similar lengths of the upper and lower whiskers.
The majority of PMV values cluster within the range of −0.5 to +0.7, indicating that occupants generally perceive a neutral thermal sensation within this interval. This suggests that the different conditioning methods employed in these environments effectively provide a comfortable indoor experience, where individuals do not experience extreme sensations of either heat or cold.
This scatter plot in
Figure 17 depicts the relationship between indoor air temperature and PMV (predicted mean vote) in classrooms and offices with different conditioning types: air conditioning, mixed mode, and natural ventilation. The
Y-axis represents PMV values, ranging from −3 (cold sensation) to +3 (hot sensation), with zero indicating a neutral thermal sensation. The
X-axis represents indoor air temperature in °C. The plot shows a modest positive correlation between the variables, indicating that as one variable increases, the other tends to increase as well, and vice versa. Within the temperature range of 20 °C to 25 °C, the data points cluster around PMV values close to zero, indicating a state of thermal comfort. However, as the temperature exceeds 25 °C, the positive correlation suggests an upward trend in PMV values and an associated increase in UTCI heat stress. It is important to note the presence of a few outliers in the dataset. These research findings suggest the importance of maintaining indoor air temperatures within the range of 20 °C to 25 °C to achieve optimal thermal comfort for occupants. However, exceeding this range can lead to discomfort and potentially pose health risks associated with heat stress. Additionally, it is crucial to explore effective strategies for mitigating heat stress and improving thermal comfort. This includes investigating adaptive thermal comfort models, advanced control systems, and personalized comfort solutions. These approaches are essential to ensure the well-being and productivity of occupants across various types of conditioning and settings.
This scatter plot in
Figure 18 illustrates the relationship between thermal sensation and indoor air temperature, considering different conditioning types such as air conditioning, mixed mode, and natural ventilation. The observations were conducted in classrooms and offices. The
y-axis represents thermal sensation values, ranging from −3 (feeling cold) to +3 (feeling hot), with zero indicating a neutral thermal sensation. The
x-axis represents indoor air temperature in °C.
The graph indicates a positive correlation between the two variables in the temperature range of 17 °C to 25 °C. This implies that, as one variable increases, the other also tends to increase, and vice versa. For the temperature range of 25 °C to 30 °C, there appears to be no significant relationship between the variables. However, beyond 30 °C, the positive correlation resumes.
During the initial positive correlation range of 20 °C to 25 °C, the data suggest a prevalence of neutral thermal sensation, indicating that people generally feel thermally comfortable within this temperature range [
72]. As the temperature exceeds this range, the positive correlation indicates an increase in neutral thermal sensation, along with a rise in UTCI heat stress. It is worth noting that the dataset contains some outliers as well [
73].
The graph in
Figure 19 displays the ASHRAE adaptive model [
74], where acceptability is used as the satisfaction metric. The
x-axis represents the average monthly outdoor temperature in °C, while the
y-axis represents the indoor radiant temperature in °C. The graph includes a satisfaction band that spans from zero percent (pink color) to 100 percent (green color). The data were gathered from various building types such as houses, classrooms, and offices, employing different conditioning methods like air conditioning, mixed mode, and natural ventilation [
75,
76].
The graph reveals a positive correlation between the two variables, indicating that, as one variable increases, the other also tends to increase, and vice versa. The solid black line represents the ASHRAE 55 comfort zone. Upon closer examination, it is evident that the majority of the datasets fall within this comfort zone when using the specified conditioning methods [
77].
Furthermore, the green datasets on the graph signify that most individuals feel thermally comfortable when the outdoor temperature is around 23 °C, with an indoor radiant temperature range of 17 °C to 27 °C. However, it is important to acknowledge that the dataset contains some outliers as well. This information suggests that optimizing indoor conditions, such as radiant temperature, based on the ASHRAE adaptive model [
78], can enhance occupant satisfaction and thermal comfort in various building types and under different conditioning methods.
This plot in
Figure 20 serves as a summary of the various plots and datasets described earlier. It illustrates the relationship between PMV, plotted on the
x-axis, and the percentage of people dissatisfied. The graph exhibits a general curve represented by a black line. The curve begins at a PMV value of −3, indicating 100% dissatisfaction. As the PMV value increases from −3 to 0, the plot demonstrates a negative correlation with the percentage of dissatisfied individuals. At a PMV value of zero, the percentage of dissatisfaction approaches zero, indicating that PMV zero represents a neutral thermal sensation [
79], where nearly all individuals feel thermally comfortable. From 0 to +3 PMV value, the plot shows a positive correlation between the two variables, indicating that at a PMV value of 3, considered a hot sensation, the percentage of dissatisfied individuals is 100%.
Now, examining the obtained datasets represented by a blue line, different conditioning types such as air conditioning systems, mixed modes, and natural ventilation systems were used in various building types including houses, classrooms, and offices, with the satisfaction metric set as comfort. The datasets demonstrate that, using these conditioning types, starting from a PMV value of −3, the percentage of dissatisfied individuals is slightly above 25%. As the PMV value approaches zero, the percentage of dissatisfied individuals decreases to less than 20%, indicating a negative correlation within this range. Beyond a PMV value of zero, the percentage of dissatisfied individuals increases up to 45%, revealing a positive correlation within this range. This suggests that employing these conditioning types can enhance people’s indoor thermal comfort, as the percentage of dissatisfied individuals decreases.
This study’s inability to encompass every imaginable type of building may result in it lacking comprehensive solutions for specific challenges and complexities associated with certain structures. For instance, hospitals demand distinct considerations such as medical equipment, infection control measures, and specialized infrastructure for patient care. Similarly, manufacturing facilities have unique requirements pertaining to production lines, safety regulations, and the handling of hazardous materials.
By not encompassing all possible building types, the research may lack the necessary depth and specificity required to address the complexity of these specialized contexts. Consequently, professionals working on projects involving non-standard building types might find the framework less applicable or less helpful in guiding their decision-making processes.
4.3. Thermal Comfort Assessment
Virtually all parametric statistics have an assumption that the data come from a population that follows a known distribution. This assumption of normality is often erroneously applied, however, because many populations are not normally distributed. Therefore, researchers need to understand what their samples consist of. It is standard practice to assume that the sample mean from a random sample is normal because of the central-limit theorem. However, almost all variables have a slight departure from normality. If researchers have a large enough sample, then any statistical test will reject the null hypothesis. In other words, the data will never be normally distributed if the sample size is large enough. To assess normality, skewness and kurtosis statistics are assessed. Skewness refers to the symmetry of the distribution and kurtosis refers to the peakedness. Variables that have distributions that are very asymmetrical, flat, or peaked could bias any test that assumes a normal (i.e., bell-shaped) distribution. Generally, skewness and kurtosis values (converted as z-scores) that fall outside ±4 should be further inspected for potential outlier removal, nonparametric testing, or transformation. However, researchers may have flexibility in larger samples.
Table 11 shows that the external environmental temperatures ranged from 25.3 °C to 38.7 °C, with a mean of 28.7 °C. The Relative Humidity (RH) ranged from 53.5% to 87.1%, with a mean of 67.7%, which indicates the hot and humid conditions experienced at the time. In addition, the measured indoor air temperatures were between 25.0 °C and 35.0 °C, with an average of 27.8 °C and a Standard Deviation (SD) of 1.8 °C. The globe temperatures were between 24.5 °C and 37 °C, with an average of 28 °C and a SD of 1.9 °C. The indoor RH ranged between 53% and 81%, with an average of 66.9% and a SD of 8.1%.
As shown in
Figure 21a,d, the overall recorded temperatures were above the acceptable benchmark of 25 °C necessary to maintain the occupants’ thermal comfort. In addition, the average mean temperatures across both the indoor measurement results and the outdoor monitoring results were recorded between 30.59 °C and 32.12 °C, which is above the recommended thermal comfort level of 23 °C to 25 °C indicated by the CIBSE TM52 Overheating Task Force statement. It is worth noting that daily running mean outdoor temperatures reflect the thermal experience of occupants better than monthly mean temperatures, since the outdoor mean temperatures sometimes change in much shorter intervals. In this study, the monthly mean temperature was taken as an average temperature of the month as a whole, but occupants’ responses were predominantly correlated with their thermal experiences and their ability to adapt their physiological body temperature according to changing climate conditions in the summer [
80].
Therefore, the exponentially weighted mean of the running mean of the daily mean outdoor temperature was calculated using the following equation:
where Trm is the outdoor running mean temperature, Todm is the outdoor mean temperature, and α is a constant between zero and one, usually 0.8. The running mean temperature for all surveyed days was validated using data from the closest weather station to provide reliable information about the climatic conditions experienced during that period. As shown in
Figure 22a,d, the outdoor air temperature ranged between 29.7 °C and 37.8 °C, averaging 27.8 °C with a standard deviation of 2.1 for the hottest summer month of August 2018. It has been noted that, in all the interviewed/measured flats, the indoor air temperature strongly correlated with the indoor globe temperature. Thus, it appears that absolute humidity (gw/kgda) showed a significant relationship with most of the indoor and outdoor variables. This could reflect that humidity is an important variable for thermal comfort in this research context.
During this monitoring period, it was observed that both the indoor and outdoor RH ranged between 57.84% and 59.17%, within the benchmark thermal comfort range (40–60%), particularly during the heatwave periods. In relation to the static ‘comfort’ range in the 2006 CIBSE Guide A, the indoor air temperatures in the living room were mainly well above the comfort range (25 °C ± 3 K) for a non-air-conditioned living room, although there were some instances of temperatures above 28 °C and below 25 °C.
In this study, it can be seen that the temperatures were significantly higher throughout the measurement and monitoring period between the 28th of July and the 2nd of September, with several instances in which the temperature was above 35 °C but never below 25 °C. Moreover, the recorded temperatures were significantly higher throughout the measurement period, with several occurrences in which the temperature was above 30 °C but never below 25 °C. The average mean indoor air temperature across 100 measured living rooms was 30.59 °C. When cross-related with the outdoor air temperature data, it was apparent that these figures correlated with the outdoor temperatures and highlighted the impact of long-term heatwaves on the overheating risk within the buildings.