Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101

Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation

as a guide for designing urban spaces
Marialena Nikolopouloua,*, Koen Steemersb,1
a
Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES), 19th km Marathonos Avenue, Pikermi 19009, Greece
b
The Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies, Department of Architecture,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2EB, UK

Abstract

Investigating thermal comfort conditions in outdoor urban spaces, has thrown some light on the complexity of the issues involved,
demonstrating that a quantitative approach is insufficient in describing comfort conditions outdoors. It revealed that although microclimatic
parameters strongly influence thermal sensation, they cannot fully account for the wide variation between objective and subjective comfort
evaluation, whereas, psychological adaptation seems to becoming increasingly important. This paper concentrates on the issue of
psychological adaptation: naturalness, expectations, experience (short-/long-term), time of exposure, perceived control and environmental
stimulation, and presents an attempt to try and evaluate the relative impact of each of these parameters. Understanding the interrelationship
between the different parameters of psychological adaptation would be of interest in order to compare their relative significance, and to assess
their design role, that is whether design considerations would influence these parameters, or vice versa, whether they could influence design
decisions. An awareness of these issues would be valuable to architects, planners and urban designers, not by the way of limiting possible
solutions, rather by enriching the design possibilities.
# 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Outdoor comfort; Adaptation; Urban spaces; Design considerations

1. Introduction is less likely to be chosen, in order to avoid discomfort.

Understanding and evaluating thermal comfort conditions
in urban spaces is necessary, as this can have major implica-
tions for the development of cities. Investigating thermal
comfort in the urban context through 1431 interviews at four
different sites in the city-centre of Cambridge—at different
times of the year—has thrown some light on the complexity
of the issues involved, and has demonstrated that a quanti-
tative approach is insufficient in describing comfort condi-
tions outdoors [1]. Evaluation of comfort was done comparing
the recorded environmental parameters—air and globe tem-
perature, wind speed and humidity—with the subjective
human behaviour and responses people gave at the interviews.
Before engaging in the discussion on the thermal comfort
conditions of outdoor spaces, however, a differentiation has
to be drawn between routes and resting places. In the study
presented here, we are concerned with resting areas, since
people choose to sit somewhere, whereas, a particular route
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ30-10-6603300; fax: þ30-10-6603301.
E-mail address: mnikol@cres.gr (M. Nikolopoulou).
1
Tel.: þ44-1223-331700; fax: þ44-1223-331701.
Nevertheless, such discomfort will not cause them serious
distress, since the time of exposure to the specific environ-
mental conditions is short. On the other hand, with resting
places the situation is different, as poor comfort conditions
may distress people and lead them to avoid using these areas.
The study revealed that microclimatic parameters indeed
strongly influence thermal sensations, but such an approach
only accounted for around 50% of the variation between
objective and subjective comfort evaluation. The rest could
not be measured by physical parameters, but psychological
adaptation seemed to become increasingly important,
accommodating wide fluctuations in the physical environ-
ment, so that thermal discomfort is avoided.
This paper concentrates on the issues comprising psycho-
logical adaptation: naturalness, expectations, experience
(short- and long-term), time of exposure, perceived control
and environmental stimulation, as it has not been possible so
far to quantify these effects, the relative weight of each
parameter is not known. An attempt is presented here to try
and evaluate the relative impact of each of these parameters.
Understanding the interrelationship between the different
parameters of psychological adaptation would be of interest

0378-7788/03/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 7 8 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 4 - 1
96 M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101
in order to compare their relative significance, and to assess
their design role, that is whether design considerations
would influence these parameters, or vice versa, whether
they could influence design decisions.
Some of these parameters are inherent to the qualities of a
space, whereas, others are more personal, variables people
bring in the space. The complexity of these relationships is
also variable, as none of them follows a simple cause and
effect situation. In some of these, satisfaction with the
thermal environment of the space will depend as much on
the space itself, as it will on personal variables people bring
to the area with them, and the former will affect the latter,
whereas, the latter will affect the perception of the former.
However, despite the complexity of the above interrela-
tions, it is possible to consider—without being determinis-
tic—design issues which would have some impact on the
above parameters, as described further below. This would in
turn increase the range that psychological adaptation could
take place, therefore, widening the range of environmental
conditions considered as comfortable. An awareness of
these issues would be valuable to architects, planners and
urban designers, not by the way of limiting possible solu-
tions, rather by enriching the design possibilities.
2. Thermal sensation
The interviews demonstrated that thermal, and by impli-
cation comfort conditions, affect people’s use of outdoor
spaces. Responses to the microclimate might have been
unconscious but have resulted in a different use of urban
space in different climatic conditions [1]. Examining the
number of people using the different spaces at various time
intervals, revealed that warm conditions and the presence
of the sunlight are the important factors in the use of the
space, as shown in Fig. 1, where the average number of
people sitting in the space increases as globe temperature
increases.
Most importantly, however, comparison of objective with
subjective data revealed that there was a great discrepancy
Fig. 1. Variation of the number of people outdoors, in relation to globe
temperature.
Fig. 2. Comparison between actual percentage and predicted percentage of
dissatisfied.
between the two, regarding thermal comfort conditions
outdoors.
The predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD), based on
the theoretical calculation of the predicted mean vote (PMV)
for each interviewee [2], (getting a mean value from the
individual calculated PPDs), was compared with the corre-
sponding actual percentage of dissatisfied (APD) (Fig. 2).
The PPD varies from 56% in spring to 91% in winter,
whereas, the yearly average is 66%. That implies 944 of
the 1431 people sitting outside should be dissatisfied with
their thermal environment. In fact, the APD is always around
10%, a figure that is regarded as acceptable, found even in
controlled indoor environments.
In agreement with most field studies carried out in build-
ings, the current results suggest that adaptation takes place.
Furthermore, the wide variation of environmental para-
meters outdoors, in contrast to indoor conditions, accentuate
this discrepancy.
3. Adaptation
The term ‘adaptation’ can be broadly defined as the
gradual decrease of the organism’s response to repeated
exposure to a stimulus, involving all the actions that make
them better suited to survive in such an environment. In the
context of thermal comfort, this may involve all the pro-
cesses which people go through to improve the fit between
the environment and their requirements.
Within such a framework, adaptive opportunity can be
separated into three different categories: physical, physio-
logical and psychological [3]. A brief description of these
categories is necessary, in order to obtain a clear under-
standing of the different issues involved, and to be in a
position to get into more depth on the subject of psycholo-
gical adaptation.
 M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101
3.1. Physical adaptation
Physical adaptation involves all the changes a person
makes, in order to adjust oneself to the environment, or
alter the environment to his needs. We can, therefore,
identify two different kinds of adaptation, reactive and
interactive [3]. In reactive adaptation, the only changes
occurring are personal, such as altering one’s clothing levels,
posture and position, or even metabolic heat with the con-
sumption of hot or cool drinks. In interactive adaptation,
however, people make changes to the environment in order
to improve their comfort conditions, such as opening a
window, turning a thermostat, opening a parasol, etc.
3.2. Physiological adaptation
Physiological adaptation implies changes in the physio-
logical responses resulting from repeated exposure to a
stimulus, leading to a gradual decreased strain from such
exposure. In the context of the thermal environment, this is
called physiological acclimatization. Such a mechanism
becomes crucial in extreme environments, but in the context
of the current research, it is not of central importance.
3.3. Evidence for psychological adaptation
Different people perceive the environment in a different
way, and the human response to a physical stimulus is not in
direct relationship to its magnitude, but depends on the ’infor-
mation’ that people have for a particular situation. Psycholo-
gical factors are, therefore, influencing the thermal perception
of a space and the changes occurring in it, as described below.
3.3.1. Naturalness
This is a term employed by Griffiths et al. [4], describing
an environment free from artificiality, whereby there seems
to be increasing evidence that people can tolerate wide
changes of the physical environment, provided they are
produced naturally. The best example that this is an impor-
tant parameter in people’s perception of outdoor spaces is
perhaps highlighted in Fig. 2, where the respective PPD and
APD profiles are very different. In such places, where all the
climatic changes occur naturally, wide changes of the phy-
sical environment are tolerated.
3.3.2. Expectations
Expectations—that is what the environment should be
like, rather than what it actually is—greatly influence peo-
ple’s perceptions, such as in naturally ventilated buildings,
where people expect variations in temperatures, both tem-
porally and spatially, whereas, in air-conditioned spaces they
expect a much more stable thermal environment.
In outdoor spaces this relates to the frequent reply people
gave throughout the year ‘‘it’s OK for this time of year’’,
‘‘for this time of year I would prefer it warmer’’, or ‘‘it’s
winter it’s meant to be cold’’. In the few instances, where
97
thermal conditions deviated from what people were experi-
encing the previous days, this caused differences in people’s
sensation votes or even complaints, as their expectations had
changed.
This was in agreement to the findings of a Norwegian
study [5,6], where minimum comfort temperature in autumn
was 11 8C, whereas, in spring it was 9 8C. Expectations
varied as a result of the much cooler temperatures preceding
the spring.
3.3.3. Experience
Experience directly affects people’s expectations and can
be differentiated in short- and long-term. Short-term experi-
ence is related to the memory and seems to be responsible
for the changes in people’s expectations from one day to the
following. This also explains why thermal neutrality for
outdoor conditions was found to vary from 7.5 8C in winter
to 27 8C in summer, lying close to the mean air temperature
[1], as physical adaptation only partly justify this range of
temperatures.
Long-term experience is related to the schemata people
have constructed in their minds, determining a choice of
action under different circumstances. Therefore, changes in
clothing, consumption of cool drinks to alter the metabolic
heat, moving from sun to shade, etc., all represent well-
established choices of action on the issue of how to cope
with the variable thermal environment. As Wohlwill argues,
adaptation levels are established as functions of past expo-
sure [7].
Open spaces, whether in the form of squares or parks, are
familiar places for everyone, and so are our associations with
them.
3.3.4. Time of exposure
Exposure to discomfort is not viewed negatively if the
individual anticipates that it is short-lived, such as getting
out of a warm car to enter a building in winter, and no
significant dissatisfaction is caused. This is a critical factor
for external spaces, which apart from movement, they are
mainly used for recreational activities, and people modify
the time they spend outside, according to their needs.
The time people spent in the different sites varied enor-
mously, but the thermal perception of the environment was
an important parameter influencing people’s decision on
how long to spend in the area. Two different aspects seemed
to influence this decision: the subjects’ current thermal
sensation and the subjects’ short-term thermal history.
Generally, unless exposure to discomfort is threatening for
the living organism—explaining sensitivity to the cold rather
than heat—tolerance to the thermal environment is great.
3.3.5. Perceived control
It is now widely acknowledged that people who have a
high degree of control over a source of discomfort, tolerate
wide variations, are less annoyed by it, and the negative
emotional responses are greatly reduced. People who
98 M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101
mentioned choosing their sitting positions so that the choice
of both the sun and the shade was open to them, further
reinforces this point. It is not important whether they
actually moved position eventually, the critical issue was
that the choice was available.
Similarly, this choice of sitting in the sun or the shade also
affected the amount of time spent outdoors. This was longest
in the sites that had a variety of spaces available—with
50 min average in the summer—offering both exposure to
the sun and the shade, and shortest in the area where no
shading was offered—16 min average in the summer.
Another form of perceived control over the environment
became apparent when investigating the reasons people gave
for being in the spaces, particularly in relation to their
comfort state. It became apparent that the amount of people
feeling uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the thermal
environment was higher when the only reason for being
there was to meet someone, rather than other reasons. In
particular, 23% of the population using the space as a
meeting place, waiting for another person to arrive, reported
dissatisfaction with the thermal environment (Fig. 3). This
amount of dissatisfaction decreases by half to 12%, for the
population that have gone to the space for other reasons. Put
in a different way ([8], p. 378):
‘‘Lack of action at any particular point in time does not
necessarily imply the absence of intention to act in the
future. In fact, adapting to or tolerating a stress or may
be easier if one intends to engage in active coping in the
future’’.
Therefore, people who are in the space for various reasons
are aware that it was their own choice to expose themselves
to these conditions, and when they wish can leave, becoming
more tolerant to the thermal environment. However, people
who were there to meet someone did not have the option of
leaving when they wished to do so. The termination of their
exposure to the thermal conditions was dependent on exter-
nal factors, in this case the arrival of the other person, which
was causing distress, making them less tolerant to the
environment.
Fig. 3. Percentage satisfaction: (i) theoretical predictions according to the
Fanger PPD model [2]; (ii) people in the area by their own choice and; (iii)
those waiting for another person to arrive.
This issue of free choice becomes of prime importance in
outdoor spaces, where actual control over the microclimate
is minimal, perceived control having the biggest weighting.
3.3.6. Environmental stimulation
Comfortable conditions have been regarded as those
where occupants feel neither warm nor cold, where ambient
conditions are ‘neutral’. However, it is increasingly believed
that a variable, rather than fixed, environment is preferred,
whereas, a static environment becomes intolerable. Envir-
onmental stimulation is an issue of primary importance in
external spaces, where the environment presents few thermal
constraints, this being an important asset of such areas and
one of the reasons that people use these spaces.
Environmental stimulation is probably the main reason
for the majority of people to sit outdoors. This was the most
popular reason people gave in spring, when they were asked
why they were in the area, as well as being a popular
response to what they liked about the area.
Further evidence for this is the fact that the majority of
interviewees’ actual thermal sensation votes (ASVs) were
recorded in the þ1 warm category and followed by –1
cool, but not 0 which corresponded to neutrality (Fig. 4).
Furthermore, the fact that the majority of people were found
outdoors in higher temperatures when the majority of ASVs
was þ1, suggests that people enjoy feeling warm.
Further support on this point, was obtained examining the
average time people spent outdoors, which also corre-
sponded to ASV ¼ þ1, and not neutrality. People enjoyed
feeling warm and when such conditions arise, they stay the
longest, taking advantage of the situation. This would
probably be reversed in a warm climate when enjoyment
would correspond to conditions described as cool.
The need for variability and stimulation was also found to
be especially desirable for people working in a building and
coming out for their lunch-break. This was demonstrated by
examining people’s short-term thermal history before com-
ing outdoors, i.e. where they were before, in a building or
outdoors. People coming directly from buildings spent the
longest time in warm and hot conditions.
Fig. 4. Frequency distribution for interviewees’ actual thermal sensation
votes (range between 2 and þ2).
 M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101
The most plausible justification seems to be that they see
the external environment with the fresh air, the sun and the
wind as invigorating stimulation for the senses, wishing to
spend some time there, before returning to the more mono-
tonous workplace. On the other hand, people having spent
enough time outdoors before arriving in the area meant that
sensory and thermal equilibrium had been reached. This also
suggests that heat storage, a term which is not included in the
theoretical PMV model [2], may also be a significant para-
meter in the evaluation of thermal comfort.
Another interesting point arose by examining the number
of people sitting in the sun and the shade, in spring and
summer, in relation to their short-term thermal history. It
was noticed that there is a tendency for people who come out
of a building to sit in the sun rather than shade, even at high
air temperatures. The need to ‘‘charge-up’’ the body with the
sun was greater than the short-lived and non-threatening
physiological strain on the body. On the contrary, the
majority of people found sitting in the shade had come from
outside.
Therefore, if the site itself is very interesting offering
different kinds of stimulation, people will have higher tol-
erances to the extreme conditions, provided they are not
threatening, than they would under average circumstances.
3.4. Evaluation of psychological adaptation
The effect of physical adaptation can be evaluated
numerically. An individual may adjust his temperature
range by 6 K [9], or reduce his net metabolic heat by
10% with the reduction of cold drinks [10]. Furthermore,
this information can be the input in the physiological model
to view explicitly the effect of such measures on the
theoretical PMV.
With psychological adaptation, however, it has not been
possible to quantify effects, and the relative weight of each
parameter is not known. An attempt is presented below to try
and evaluate the relative impact of the different parameters
involved in thermal comfort.
4. Influence of psychological adaptation
Understanding the interrelationship between the different
parameters of psychological adaptation would be of interest
in order to compare their relative significance, and to assess
their design role, that is whether design considerations
would influence these parameters or vice versa, whether
they could influence design decisions.
It is not possible to create a speculative network of
relationships between the various parameters. Fig. 5 depicts
such a network of the different parameters affecting psy-
chological adaptation with lines of influence between them,
indicating whether one parameter affects another. Some
parameters have a two-way relationship, such as between
perceived control and expectations where one affects the
99
Fig. 5. Lines of influence between the different parameters of psycholo-
gical adaptation.
other. These lines are not weight related and there is no
magnitude associated with the strength of relationship; they
only denote that a relationship exists. They have been
developed from common sense, as well as the insights that
this research has provided in general.
These speculative relationships are summarised in Table 1,
where the degree to which the various parameters are
influencing and are being influenced by other variables of
the same group is presented.
It is interesting to notice that the naturalness is judged
here to influence other variables, but is not influenced by any
parameters of the group. It seems that such a variable is
inherent to the space, and is not affected by more personal
variables such as perceived control. Furthermore, expecta-
tions, environmental stimulation and time of exposure can
be seen to be affected by every variable in the group.
A more simplified way of presenting this is graphically
(Fig. 6), indicating the degree one variable influences and is
being influenced by another. The three variables that are
influenced by all other parameters of psychological adapta-
tion are presented in one group, to denote the interrelations
between them, external connections provided where
required. Clearly, this implies that the relationships between
Table 1
Speculative interaction of different parameters of psychological adaptation
Parameter Influencing Being influenced
parameter by parameter
Perceived control 3 3
Expectations 3 5
Environmental stimulation 3 5
Experience 4 2
Time of exposure 3 5
Naturalness 4 0
100 M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101
Fig. 6. Network demonstrating interrelationships between the different
parameters of psychological adaptation.
those variables are complex, as it is not a simple cause and
effect situation. Satisfaction with the thermal environment
of the space will depend as much on the space itself, as it will
on personal variables people bring to the area with them, and
the former will affect the latter, whereas, the latter will affect
the perception of the former.
5. Design consideration
Despite the complexity of the above interrelations, it is
possible to consider—without being deterministic—design
issues, which would have some impact on the above para-
meters. This would, in turn, increase the range psychological
adaptation that could take place, therefore, widening the
range of environmental conditions considered as comforta-
ble. An awareness of these issues would be valuable to
architects, planners and urban designers, not by way of
limiting possible solutions, rather by enriching the design
possibilities.
The first parameter considered, influencing without being
influenced by other parameters, is the naturalness, which is
part of the character of a place. This can be significantly
increased, by ‘greening’ an area, adding vegetation or views
of landscape, particularly within the dense urban context,
which would accentuate the distinct character of the differ-
ent areas.
This positive evaluation of areas with natural instead of
built characteristics has also been verified by other studies
[11], where the presence of some trees repeatedly neutra-
lised the negative evaluation of empty space.
Past experience is not so much site-related, as much as it is
a variable people bring to the space, but some action can be
taken to affect it, particularly the short-term experience. This
would be more relevant to the design of the urban fabric or
the urban block as opposed to a single site. Since, people’s
thermal sensation is influenced by their immediate short-
term thermal experience, by providing more spatial variety
in the city, a rich variety of different environments can be
experienced, between indoors and outdoors, affecting their
thermal sensation.
Perceived control can be affected by providing increased
opportunities for physical adaptation to take place. Reactive
adaptation, such as clothing and metabolic heat, depends on
the individual and is not site-related. Spatial variation,
however, is a parameter that can be catered for, providing
a variety of sub-spaces within the same area. This would
translate into allowing for access to the sun as well as the
shade, exposure to breezes as well as protection from the
wind, with normally different areas preferred in different
seasons. Similarly, transition spaces, such as arcades provide
useful spatial variation in areas, which have to cope with
harsh winters. Interactive adaptation is infrequent in outdoor
spaces [3]. However, movable elements allowing for it, such
as parasols or awnings, provide spatial variation with pro-
tection from the sun and the rain, and are normally appre-
ciated by users of the space.
These are the main parameters that can be influenced from
the design point of view, all affecting the remaining time of
the exposure, environmental stimulation and expectations.
Time of exposure is a personal variable, but may be influ-
enced by people’s thermal evaluation of the area, positively
for extending their stay in the area, or negatively reducing it.
It is, therefore, indirectly affected by the three primary
parameters—naturalness, experience and perceived con-
trol—as well as the other two in the same group. The main
difference between the different groups is that in the former,
design considerations can improve existing conditions either
at the stage where an area is being developed, or later by
design interventions.
A variety of such examples in the former case is con-
sideration of the density of urban textures, orientation of
open spaces, width of streets, height of buildings, etc., all
affecting solar exposure and shading, as well as wind
deflection and wind acceleration through the streets and
squares. Creating pleasant or harsh urban spaces can be
determined early on, at the design stage.
When the urban texture is existent alterations are still
possible at the scale of the urban block, in order to improve
the microclimate. Microclimatic control is feasible, pro-
vided it is acknowledged that the public domain is not to
be ignored. Vegetation, used for shading and wind breaks,
movable canvas awnings, canopies made of various materi-
als such as reeds, bamboo, or vines provide effective shading
and present main architectural features of the street. Further-
more, proprietors of commercial activities are normally the
first to realise the potential of such cool oases in a hot
environment.
The individuals also determine the degree of environ-
mental stimulation desired. However, protection from nega-
tive aspects and exposure to positive aspects of the climate
can increase such desire. Such microclimatic planning
would also increase the use of outdoor spaces during the
intermediate seasons. In fact, in Norway, it was found that
the outdoor season could be extended by up to 6 weeks
 M. Nikolopoulou, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 95–101
during the more critical seasons of spring and autumn by
appropriate microclimatic planning. This meant providing
protection from the wind, orientation to maximise solar
exposure, avoiding overshadowing, employing heat absorb-
ing and heat reflecting materials, etc. [6].
Finally, regarding expectations, this is also linked to the
design of open spaces but only indirectly, by affecting the
degree of perceived control.
6. Conclusions
This work has thrown some light on the complexity of
issues involved in thermal comfort in outdoor urban spaces,
particularly in areas identified as resting places, as opposed
to routes. A quantitative approach to the physical parameters
has demonstrated that microclimatic parameters, indeed,
strongly influence thermal sensations. However, such an
approach only accounted for around 50% of the variation
of the interviewees’ ASVs. The rest could not be measured
by physical parameters, but psychological adaptation
seemed to become increasingly important.
Although it was demonstrated that psychological adaptation
is very important for the thermal evaluation of outdoor spaces,
and there is strong influence between the different parameters,
we are unable to develop these speculations in more depth, or
point to more deterministic relationships at this stage. We are
not yet able to quantify the influence of perceived control on
people’s expectations and vice versa, nor the influence of
environmental stimulation on perceived control, etc. Quanti-
fying the speculative interrelationships presented in Fig. 5
would extend our understanding of the wider notion of
‘thermal comfort’. The relevance of such an understanding
would not be restricted to open spaces; the indoor built
environment would also benefit from such an approach.
With respect to the urban context, it is inadequate to
design open spaces with regard to thermal comfort, solely on
the basis of a physical model. The physical environment is
important in outdoor thermal comfort, but psychological
adaptation is also an important factor. Although these are
largely personal parameters, appropriate microclimatic
planning and careful design of urban spaces can provide
protection from negative aspects and exposure to positive
aspects of the climate, therefore, increasing the use of
outdoor space throughout the year. Different seasons require
different approaches, but a variety of spaces providing
different environments would maximise both physical and
psychological adaptation.
The physical environment and psychological adaptation is
argued to be complementary rather than contradictory, and
101
consideration of this duality could increase the use of the
city’s open spaces, strengthening social interaction between
citizens by allowing opportunities for such interaction to
take place.
Acknowledgements
This work originated from the EU (DG XII) funded
project ‘‘Project ZED: Towards Zero Emission Urban
Developments’’ (APAS-RENA CT94-0016) coordinated
by Koen Steemers at the Martin Centre, and was co-funded
by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The
authors are currently involved in a new EU-funded research
project (5th Framework Programme, City of Tomorrow and
Cultural Heritage from the Programme Energy Environment
and Sustainable Development) on outdoor comfort which
involves the surveying, monitoring and modelling not only
thermal as well as visual and acoustic comfort conditions, in
cities across Europe. The project, entitled ‘‘RUROS: Redis-
covering the Urban Realm and Outdoor Spaces’’, is being
coordinated by Marialena Nikolopoulou at CRES.
References
[1] M. Nikolopoulou, N. Baker, K. Steemers, ‘‘Thermal comfort in
outdoor urban spaces: the human parameter’’, Solar Energy, vol. 70,
No. 3, 2001.
[2] ISO 7730: Moderate thermal environments—determination of the
PMV and PPD indices and specification of the conditions for thermal
comfort, International Standards Organization, Geneva, 1994.
[3] M. Nikolopoulou, N. Baker, K. Steemers, Thermal comfort in urban
spaces: different forms of adaptation, in: Proceedings of the
REBUILD 1999 on Shaping Our Cities for the 21st Century,
Barcelona, 1999.
[4] I.D. Griffiths, J.W. Huber, A.P. Baillie, Integrating the environment, in:
Steemers, Palz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1987 European Conference
on Architecture, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1987.
[5] L. Zrudlo, The design of climate-adapted arctic settlements, in: J.
Mänty, N. Pressman (Eds.), Cities Designed for Winter, Building
Book Ltd., Helsinki, 1988.
[6] B. Culjat, R. Erskine, Climate-responsive social space: a Scandina-
vian perspective, in: J. Mänty, N. Pressman (Eds.), Cities Designed
for Winter, Building Book Ltd., Helsinki, 1988.
[7] J.F. Wohlwill, Human adaptation to levels of environmental
stimulation, Human Ecology 2(2) (1998).
[8] J.M. Campbel, Ambient stressors, Environment and Behavior 15(3)
(1983).
[9] D.A. McIntyre, Indoor Climate, Applied Science Publishers,
London, 1980.
[10] N. Baker, M. Standeven, Thermal comfort for free-running buildings,
Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 175–182.
[11] S. Hesselgren, On Architectures: An Architectural Theory Based on
Psychological Research, Chartwell Bratt, UK, 1987.