Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb

The influence of building form variables on the environmental

performance of semi-outdoor spaces. A study in mid-rise and high-rise
buildings of Singapore
Juan Gamero-Salinas a,⇑, Nirmal Kishnani c, Aurora Monge-Barrio a, Jesús López-Fidalgo b,
Ana Sánchez-Ostiz a
a
School of Architecture, Department of Construction, Building Services and Structures, University of Navarra (UNAV), Calle Universidad, 31009 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
b
Institute of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Navarra (UNAV), Calle Universidad, 31009 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
c
School of Design and Environment, Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore (NUS), 8 Architecture Drive SDE4 #04-03, Singapore 117 356, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study delved on the role of semi-outdoor spaces (SOS), as form-based strategies, in providing
Received 24 July 2020 enhanced, thermally comfortable environments in highly dense urban contexts. A sample of sixty-
Revised 19 September 2020 three (63) SOS was studied, within four different mid-rise and high-rise buildings located in the
Accepted 5 October 2020
warm-humid tropical city of Singapore. It was found: (i) that SOS may act as thermal buffer spaces;
Available online 10 October 2020
(ii) that microclimate creation in SOS is linked to form, specifically to geometrical variables such as
void-to-solid ratio, height, height-to-depth ratio, height from ground level, green plot ratio and open
Keywords:
space ratio, which influence significantly the environmental factors of air temperature, mean radiant
Semi-outdoor space
Building form
temperature, air velocity and relative humidity; (iii) that some aforementioned geometrical variables
Environmental performance (height-to-depth ratio and open space ratio) are linked to thermal comfort when estimated with SET*
Passive design and PMV* thermal indices; (iv) and that thermal comfort (between
1 and +1 PMV*) can be achieved
Microclimate in SOS considering a typical Singaporean outdoor CLO of 0.3, especially for 1 MET (85.7% of SOS). In
Thermal comfort the context of Singapore, this study demonstrates that incorporating SOS to mid-rise and high-rise build-
High-rise buildings ing forms promotes the creation of thermally comfortable microclimates suitable for human activity,
Tropical climate even during the hottest hours.
SET*
Ó 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PMV*

1. Introduction
The Tropics, home to 40% of the world population, is charac-
terised by consistent warmth and high humidity levels [1,2], there-
fore, an increase in temperature due to climate change may have a
severe impact on the urban and building environments. In the
tropical region the number of high-heat stress days and nights is
extremely pronounced for both urban and rural environments
[3]. Buildings in tropical contexts may suffer from overheating as
shown in studies developed in locations such as Honduras, Thai-
land, Uganda and Myanmar [4–7], with a severity that increases
depending on the future weather scenario and varies depending
on whether appropriate building designs are adopted for this cli-
matic context. According to climate models, the tropical region
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jgamero@alumni.unav.es (J. Gamero-Salinas), akintk@nus.edu.
sg (N. Kishnani), amongeb@unav.es (A. Monge-Barrio), fidalgo@unav.es (J. López-
Fidalgo), aostiz@unav.es (A. Sánchez-Ostiz).
has warmed up by 0.7–0.8 °C over the last century, slightly less
than the global average, with warming predictions of 1–2 °C by
2050 and 1–4 °C by 2100 [8]. According to the 5th Report of IPCC,
temperature in Southeast Asia has been increasing at a rate of
0.14 °C to 0.20 °C per decade since the 1960s, coupled with a rising
number of hot days and warm nights, and a decline in cooler
weather [9]. Worldwide, 1 billion people face cooling access risks
[10]. Nonetheless, studies suggest that global energy demand for
air conditioning is projected to increase rapidly over the whole
2000–2100 period, mostly driven by income growth, however, in
Southeast Asia the energy demand for residential air conditioning
could increase by around 50% due to climate change [11]. In order
to face the challenge of future growth on cooling energy demand
and of the associated increase of climatic vulnerability due to cli-
mate change, building sector adaptation measures are needed [12].
In Singapore, the urban heat island (UHI) effect exacerbates the
already harsh tropical conditions [13,14]. Mitigation measures are
being proposed to address the UHI effect, as well as to improve
thermal comfort and reduce building energy consumption [15].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110544
0378-7788/Ó 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al.
Among those mitigation strategies the following are highlighted:
(i) the incorporation of vegetation to buildings in terms of green
roofs and green facades, (ii) the consideration of urban geometry
aspects such as the geometrical configuration and shape of a build-
ing, (iii) the promotion of building porosity so as to maximize wind
permeability of the urban area, (iv) the consideration of surface
coverage aspects such as the green plot ratio, (v) and the consider-
ation of shading measures based on the building geometry and ori-
entation. Citizens in Singapore have a higher preference for
spending time outdoors than indoors, and are aware, support and
are willing to pay with their taxes UHI mitigation measures [16].
Current urban policies in Singapore promote aforementioned mit-
igation measures by encouraging the use of skyterraces in build-
ings, which must be lushly landscaped and at least 40% of its
perimeter must be open [17]. The incorporation of skyterraces –
semi-outdoor spaces - to buildings may help ‘green’ the urban
habitat, as well as push the limits of passive design [18,19]. In
India, GRIHA 1Green Rating System implicitly promotes building
forms with a nature of openness and porosity so that natural venti-
lation can occur, as well as the placing of buffer spaces, such as cor-
ridors and terrace gardens, in order to reduce energy demand [20]. In
Costa Rica, RESET 2Green Building Standard explicitly gives points
for developing a spatial design that incorporates intermediate spaces
between interior and exterior [21].
1.1. Semi-outdoor spaces
Semi-outdoor spaces (SOS) are typically architectural features
found in buildings located in warm and hot climates, widely
known in literature as verandas/varandas, porch, galleries, balconies,
forecourts, corridors, passages, loggias, pilotis, semi-open spaces and
transitional spaces. SOS can be defined as transitional spaces that
mediate between indoor and outdoor environments with a micro-
climate characterized by highly variable physical conditions
[22,23], composed of man-made structures that moderate the
effects of outdoor conditions [24], bringing protection from rainfall
and undesirable radiation for both the envelope of the building and
the space it creates, as well as providing breezeways [25]. The role
of SOS as climatic moderators makes them an extension of living
space and a place to favour social relations [23].
SOS appears in vernacular and historical architecture of many
tropical regions. In Southeast Asia, the traditional Malay kampung
house, or ‘village house’, incorporates a semi-open front or back
porch called anjung, which reduces the solar radiation in the house
by the use of large roof overhangs, as a form of ‘umbrella’ [26–28].
In the Caribbean the semi-open shaded porch is also an element
found in the architecture of some ethnic groups [29]. In Cuba res-
idential buildings in Old Havana originally incorporated a central
inner courtyard, with SOS where the inhabitants could benefit
from higher air speed than inside the rooms [30]. SOS may also
attenuate RH levels [31].
The building form plays a key role in providing passive out-
comes, such as shade and natural ventilation [32], however, only
few studies delve into identifying the main attributes of form that
may enhance thermal comfort in SOS, which are focused in
ground-level SOS of low-rise buildings and not in mid-rise or
high-rise urban contexts. A study in Singapore has explored the
relationships between spatial settings and thermal environments
in different semi-open learning spaces, investigating the influence
of relevant design factors (e.g. void area, void-to-solid ratio, height,
height-to-depth ratio, orientation), finding that air temperature
and wind speed can be influenced by them [33]. A case study in
1
Green Rating for Integrate Habitat Assessment
2
Requirements for Sustainable Building in the Tropics
2
Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544
Brazil analysed some design variables related to the verandas inter-
vening in different forms of solar radiation incidence (e.g. orienta-
tion, height-to-depth ratio, sky view factor, albedo and emissivity on
surfaces, area) [25]. A simulation study on facade porosity showed
that loggias with large opening size significantly increase ventila-
tion rates [34].
Although current building policies in Singapore encourage the
incorporation of skyterraces as a way to promote social spaces in
high-density contexts as well as urban greenery and wind porosity,
few studies exist on the benefits of creating porous buildings
forms, and by doing so, of the associated thermal comfort that
may result in such spaces. A CFD simulation study suggests that
skygardens located in mid-levels of high-rise buildings can provide
better thermal comfort in summer conditions due to increased nat-
ural wind speed and shading [35]. In office buildings the semi-open
transitional spaces are also effective in cooling the façade as well
[36]. In Singapore, forecourts that reinterpreted the veranda or an-
jung of the traditional Malay kampong house, provided substantial
cooling of the environment and promoted social interaction [37].
SOS may act as thermal buffers and interfere in reducing AC energy
demand in indoor environments that are adjacent to them, as
shown in a post-occupancy study about a high-rise and porous res-
idential building in Singapore that incorporated sheltered and
thermally comfortable skyterraces [38].
1.2. Aim of the study
Given all the above, empirical data with field measurements on
the thermal behaviour of SOS especially in mid-rise and high-rise
contexts located in warm-humid climates is still needed. Buildings
in highly dense cities such as Singapore incorporate skyterraces so
to make them more ‘porous’ and less ‘sealed’, with policies pro-
moting it. However, a gap exists on whether these spaces provide
an environment suitable for human activity and on the character-
istics that make SOS in mid-rise and high-rise buildings provide a
thermally comfortable environment. Do they offer an environment
suitable for typical social activities that can replace indoor air-
conditioned (AC) spaces? And if they do, what characteristics of
the SOS promote a more comfortable environment? In this sense
this study poses the following research objectives: (1) to investi-
gate if SOS, as form-based strategies, are able to act as buffer
spaces, (2) to characterize SOS based on geometric variables found
in literature in order to determine their influence on microclimatic
environmental factors (air temperature, mean radiant tempera-
ture, air velocity and relative humidity) and thermal comfort; (3)
and based on in-situ measurements, to estimate the degree of ther-
mal comfort that occupants may achieve on SOS with typical light
activities.
2. Methodology
2.1. Building selection
Four buildings located in the tropical city of Singapore were
selected as case studies: School of the Arts (SO), OASIA Hotel
Downtown (OA), Kampung Admiralty (KA) and Skyville@Dawson
(SV). They are prototypes that experiment with nature and build-
ing form so to achieve environmental and thermal comfort out-
comes [39] (see Fig. 1).
In summary, (i) School of the Arts (SO) is a project with a high-
density design approach that incorporates three long rectangular
blocks separated by large open-ended horizontal breezeways, as
well as green screens that are environmental filters that may keep
the rooms cool; (ii) OASIA Hotel Downtown (OA) design approach
was to showcase a permeable tower wrapped in a double skin
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al.
Fig. 1. From left to right: School of the Arts (SO), OASIA Hotel Downtown (OA), Kampung Admiralty (KA) and Skyville@Dawson (SV).
facade with green screens, introducing layers of breezeway atria to
create generous public areas for recreation and social interaction;
(iii) Kampung Admiralty (KA) was thought as a vertical kampung,
with a fully porous, sheltered and shaded plaza in the lower layer
plaza (breezewayatria) and a Community Park in the upper layer;
and (iv) Skyville@Dawson (SV) is a project, where each home is
designed to be part of a sky village comprising one-unit thick res-
idential towers connected by skyterraces and skygardens, sharing an
inner-voided breezeway tower that may facilitate horizontal and
vertical air flows and may act as a thermal buffer [40].
Within these four (4) buildings, a sample of sixty-three (63) SOS
was identified and studied: 12 in SO (see Fig. 2), 16 in OA (see
Fig. 3), 4 in KA (see Fig. 4) and 31 in SV (see Fig. 5).
2.2. Climate
Singapore is located near the equator (1.3° N, 103.8° E) and is
classified as a tropical rainforest climate (Af) according to
Köppen-Geiger (KG) classification. This study was developed dur-
ing the southwest monsoon season (June – September), with
south-easterly and southerly prevailing winds and common short
duration showers/thunderstorms in the afternoon; high and uni-
form temperatures and high humidity are experienced all year
round [41], as shown in Table 1. Passive design strategies suited
for this climate include deep shade, airflow and lightweight mate-
rials [42].
2.3. Measurements
2.3.1. Environmental factors
For all SOS, measurements of air temperature (Ta), relative
humidity (RH), globe temperature (Tglobe) and air velocity were
taken within the periods shown in Table 2. Outdoor air tempera-
ture (Tout) measurements were also taken for each building, shel-
tered from direct sun. Ta and RH measurements were taken with
calibrated HOBO loggers (temperature accuracy: ±0.35 °C; RH
accuracy: ±2.5% from 10 to 90% RH), Madgetech RH Temp loggers
(temperature accuracy: ±0.5 °C; RH accuracy: ±3.0% from 25 to
75% RH) and VelociCalc handheld air meter (temperature accuracy:
±0.3 °C; RH accuracy: ± 3.0% from 5 to 95% RH). Globe temperature
(Tglobe) and air velocity handheld measurements were taken using
a TESTO 0.15 m globe temperature thermometer with a type K
thermocouple and a VelociCalc air velocity meter (accuracy:
±0.025 m/s), respectively. Loggers were programmed to take data
every 10 min for the mentioned periods, later transformed into
hourly data. Handheld measurements were taken every hour
between 10am and 4 pm in one (SO, OA & KA building) or two days
(SV building) of each mentioned period. Measurement locations of
3
Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544
loggers and handheld equipment are shown in Figs. 2–5. Based on
ISO 7726 [43], Tmrt was calculated with the following equation:
" #0:25

4 1:1  108 V 0:6

T mrt ¼ T globe þ 273 þ a
 T globe
T a
eD0:4

273 ð1Þ
where Tglobe is globe temperature (°C), Va is air velocity (ms
1), Ta is
air temperature (°C), D is globe diameter (m) and e is the emissivity
of globe thermometer (0.95 for TESTO globe temperature
thermometer).
2.3.2. Geometrical variables
Based on a literature review, some geometrical variables (see
Table 3 and Fig. 6) were identified in order to study the role of
SOS in providing a thermally comfortable environment, some pre-
viously used for studying semi-outdoor spaces, and others for
studying buildings and urban forms. These geometrical variables
were calculated using a simplified model of all 63 SOS, as shown
from Figs. 2–5, based on floor and section plans, and on in-situ
observations.
Regarding variables tested previously in semi-outdoor studies,
low levels of incident solar radiation are provided by deep veran-
das [25], which affects air temperature. A simulation study on ter-
raced apartments also showed that an increase on terrace depth
can enhance up to 88% wind velocity on indoors [51]. A study in
semi-outdoor spaces has found that occupants perceived their
environment to be windier and more thermally comfortable when
having a high HDR, that VSR can increase ventilation and wind sen-
sation in SOS, and that air temperature and orientation are posi-
tively correlated [33]. Since studied SOS were not all in ground
level HFG was calculated to determine the influence that height
elevation has.
Regarding variables tested for urban forms it has been demon-
strated that shallow urban canyons are warmer than deeper ones
[52], and that in urban canyons an increase in building height pro-
vides a higher comfortable condition and an increase in wind speed
[53]. Other urban studies have shown that a higher OSRA increases
the level of exposure to sky on building facades with high solar
radiation heat gains [54]. Within the different varieties of volumet-
ric compactness [47], it has been found that the lower the value for
traditional volumetric compactness (VCT) the more efficient is the
space keeping heat inside and reducing loss by the envelope in cold
climates [55], and the same for form factor (VCFF), which enables to
compare independently of the size effect [55]. Literature also
shows that greenery lowers the mean radiant temperature of
buildings, reduces its energy cooling load, and reduces the urban
heat island effect [56,57].
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Fig. 2. Left: SOS studied in School of the Arts building (SO building), where yellow colour indicates voids. Right: Dimensions of SOS, measurement locations and shading
conditions (June 10, between 2 pm and 3 pm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Left: SOS studied in OASIA Hotel Downtown building (OA building), where yellow colour indicates voids. Right: Dimensions of SOS, measurement locations and
shading conditions (June 26, between 2 pm and 3 pm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

2.4. Data analysis
Three levels of analysis were performed, which correspond to
the three main research objectives of this study, stated in Sec-
tion 1.1: Semi-outdoor spaces. The typically warm hour of 2 pm
(between 2 and 3 pm), time at which all SOS are shaded and the
influence of solar radiation can be ruled out (as shown in Figs. 2–
5), was used as the reference time to assess the influence of geo-
metrical parameters of SOS on environmental factors and thermal
comfort. This method of selecting a typical warm hour was also
used in another study on air temperature prediction at an estate
level in Singapore [56,58].
A typical value for all environmental factors was calculated for
each of the 63 SOS. A typical Ta, Tmrt and RH value was calculated
for each individual SOS averaging all 2 pm readings. Also, a typical
air velocity value was calculated for each SOS averaging the wind
velocities measured from 10am – 4 pm for 1 day (in SO, OA and
4
KA building) or 2 days (in SV building). Rainy days were discarded
from the analysis since in those conditions all environmental fac-
tors are modified.
2.4.1. Temperature difference between semi-outdoor spaces and
outdoor conditions
Since measurements were performed in different periods for
each building, Tout readings of each building were analysed statis-
tically so as to find if they differ significantly or not from each
other. Since the sample was small (6 days of measurements)
Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was performed, using kruskal.
test function with R software, for comparing the six Tout 2 pm read-
ings of all four building. In order to determine how effective SOS
are as thermal buffers, Mann-Whitney’s test for one sample was
performed (using wilcox.test function with R software), comparing
the mean Ta of the group of SOS in each building with its respective
building Tout, and considering that the Ta data does not follow a
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Fig. 4. Left: SOS studied in Kampung Admiralty (KA building), where yellow colour indicates voids. Right: Dimensions of SOS, measurement locations and shading conditions
(July 09, between 2 pm and 3 pm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 5. Left: SOS studied in Skyville@Dawson building (SV building), where yellow colour indicates voids. Right: Dimensions of SOS, measurement locations and shading
conditions (July 24, between 2 pm and 3 pm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1
Singapore weather data from Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS), mean values for 1981–2010 period [41].

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Temperature, 24-hr mean (°C) 26.5 27.1 27.5 28.0 28.3 28.3 27.9 27.9 27.6 27.6 27.0 26.4
Temperature, mean daily maximum (°C) 30.4 31.7 32.0 32.3 32.2 32.0 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.7 31.1 30.2
Temperature, mean daily minimum (°C) 23.9 24.3 24.6 25.0 25.4 25.4 25.0 25.0 24.8 24.7 24.3 24.0
Relative humidity, 24-hr mean (%) 84.4 82.0 83.4 84.1 83.5 81.9 82.3 82.2 82.7 83.1 85.7 86.5
Wind speed, mean monthly/annual (m/s) 2.9 3.0 2.3 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.2

Table 2
Periods of study for each building.
1
normal distribution. Normality was tested using shapiro.test with R
Building Periods of study
software. A mean temperature difference (DT) between outdoor
School of the Arts (SO) June 10 – 16, 2019 conditions and SOS was calculated.
OASIA Hotel Downtown (OA) June 26 – July 02, 2019
Kampung Admiralty (KA) July 09 – 16, 2019
Skyville@Dawson (SV) July 24 – 30, 2019 2.4.2. Influence of geometrical variables on environmental factors
1
Discarded days due to rainy conditions (SO: June 12th; OA: June 29th; KA: July 9th The influence of geometrical variables on environmental factors
and July 16th; SV: July 24th) (Ta, Tmrt, air velocity and RH) was studied performing stepwise
5
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Table 3
Geometrical variables identified for studying semi-outdoor spaces.

Variable Definition Formula

Height It measures the semi-outdoor spaces from base to top (in meters) [33]. –
Depth It measures the distance (in meters) perpendicular from the outmost building contour [33]. –
Height-to-depth ratio (HDR) It measures the ratio between Height and Depth [33]. HDR ¼; height=depth
Void It measures the area of openings (m2) in the SOS [33]. –
Void-to-solid ratio (VSR) It measures the ratio between Void and Solid area of a space, where Solid is the amount of VSR ¼; void=solid
solid faces the Volume has (m2) [33]
Orientation It measures to which cardinal point a building or space is facing, in relation to the north up to –
south (0-180°).
Height from ground (HFG) It measures the distance of a semi-outdoor space from ground level (in meters). –
Open space ratio(area based) Adapted from a previous study [44], it measures the ratio between the area of the SOS (m2) OSRA ; ¼; SOS area=total floor area
and the total floor area where the semi-outdoor space is located (m2).
Open space ratio (perimeter Adapted from previous studies [45,46], it measures the ratio between the frontage (in meters) OSRP ¼; frontage=perimeter
based) exposed to outdoor conditions in the SOS and the total perimeter of the SOS (in meters).
Traditional volumetric Adapted from other studies [47,48], it measures the ratio between the volume surfaces of SOS VCT ; ¼; volume surface =volume
compactness (m2), as it was an envelope, and the Volume (m3) of the SOS.
Form factor Adapted from another study [47,48], and similar to the traditional volumetric compactness, it VCFF ; ¼;volume surface=volume
2=3

Green plot ratio (GPR)
measures the ratio between the volume surfaces of SOS (m2), as it was an envelope, and the
Volume (m3) to the power of 2/3, in order to remove the size effect.
It measures the ratio between the total Leaf Area Index (LAI) to the total area of the space GPR ¼; LAI=SOS area
(m2) [49], where LAI is a common biological parameter defined as the single-side leaf area per
unit ground area. LAI ratios specified for grassland (1:1), shrubs (1:3) and trees (1:6) were
used as reference values [50].

Fig. 6. Measurements needed for computing geometrical variables (SOS 13 in OA building used as example).

multiple linear regressions, using stepAIC (MASS package) and lm
functions with R software. For the four models the variance infla-
tion factor (VIF) for all predictors in regression models were pro-
vided, using VIF function (regclass package). The models that
resulted from the stepwise regressions were corrected in case of
multicollinearity by removing highly correlated predictors (predic-
tors with a high VIF). For each model, an R2 value will be obtained,
which represents the proportion of the variance that is explained
by the geometrical factors.
2.4.3. Thermal comfort in semi-outdoor spaces
For outdoor thermal comfort evaluation the most common
indices found in literature are SET* [59,60], PET [61] and UTCI
[62]. One of the most common approaches for the thermal comfort
evaluation of thermal comfort in semi-outdoor environments is to
use the two-node model of the human thermoregulatory system,
which considers the skin temperature and skin wettedness as the
key parameters in the estimation of thermal comfort [63]. Gagge’s
SET*, derived from this two-node model, is defined as the equiva-
lent dry bulb temperature of an isothermal environment at 50% RH
in which a subject, while wearing clothing standardized for activity
concerned, would have the same heat stress (skin temperature)
and thermo-regulatory strain (skin wettedness) as in the actual
test environment [59,60]. Although SET* provides a tool for evalu-
ating an environment it does not give a comfort scale [64]. In order
to assess the degree of comfort in studied SOS Gagge’s version of
Fanger’s PMV (called PMV*) was used as a counterpart for SET*,
since it is a better index, in contrast to PMV, for measuring thermal
stress of the environment caused by heat loads, as well as to the
physiological heat strain caused by changing humidity of the envi-
ronment and by changing vapor permeability properties of cloth-
ing worn [60]. Thermal comfort standards such as ISO 7730 [65],
EN16798-1 [66] and ASHRAE Standard 55 [67] include both fixed
(e.g. PMV/PPD) and adaptive thermal comfort models designed

6
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

for indoor conditions, not transferable for semi-outdoor or outdoor than Tmrt (see Table 4). RH values ranged between 57.8 and 79.2%.
environments [68], therefore were not used for the evaluation. The typical air velocity for all SOS was found to be 0.87 m/s, with
Respectively, SET* and PMV* were calculated using calcSET and air velocities that ranged between 0.17 and 2.10 m/s. In this study
calcPMVStar functions (comf package) with R software. [69]. Mea- significant correlations were found between some environmental
sured environmental factors (Ta, Tmrt, air velocity and RH) were factors as shown in Appendix A section, Table A5. It was found that
introduced in the function. A CLO value of 0.3 was considered for RH is negatively correlated to Ta (r = -0.425, p < .001), Tmrt (r = -0.494,
all calculations, considering studies suggesting it as the typical p < .001) and air velocity (r = -0.309, p = .014), as well as that air veloc-
clothing value in outdoor and semi-outdoor urban spaces of Singa- ity is positively correlated with Tmrt (r = +0.531, p < .001). Regarding
pore [70,71]. Three SET* and three PMV* calculations were per- studied geometrical variables, SOS were found to have diverse char-
formed for each SOS only differing in MET values for slight acteristics (see Table 5).
activities (sitting = 1 MET; standing = 1.5 METs; and slow walking
at 0.9 m/s: 2 METs), considering that the metabolic activity values
3.1. Temperature difference between semi-outdoor spaces and outdoor
in SOS may be higher than the sedentary behaviour typical of
conditions
indoors [22]. MET values may also vary depending on the building
use (e.g. residential, hotel, educational). For instance, in OA build-
Readings of Tout at 2 pm in all four buildings were found not to
ing occupants may use the SOS for relaxing near the pool or lounge
be significantly different between each building when performing
area (1 MET), in SV building for sitting and talking (1 MET – 1.5
Kruskal-Wallis test (p = .155), although measured in different peri-
METs), and in SO buildings they may be used for studying, as well
ods. When performing Shapiro-Wilk test it was found that Ta in
as for running and playing (approximately 3 METs, not addressed
SOS at 2 pm were not normally distributed (p = .005). In all four
in this study).
buildings the mean Ta of SOS was significantly lower than their
respective Tout when performing Mann-Whitney’s test for one
2.4.4. Influence of geometrical variables on thermal comfort sample, as shown in Table 6.
The influence of geometrical variables on thermal indices (SET*
and PMV*) was studied performing stepwise multiple linear
regressions, using lm and stepAIC (MASS package) function with 3.2. Influence of geometrical variables on environmental factors
the R software. For the six models (three models per thermal
index) the variance inflation factor (VIF) was also provided. Models As shown in Table 7 and Appendix A section (Table A1,
were corrected in the event that multicollinearity was detected. Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4), when performing multiple linear
For each model, an R2 value will be also obtained. Table 7
Summary of the models having the environmental factors as dependent variables.
3. Results Model Dependent variable R2 p-value (p)
Model 1 Ta at SOS at 2 pm 0.504 p < .001
At the typically warm hour of 2 pm where all studied SOS (n = 63) Model 2 Tmrt at SOS at 2 pm 0.668 p < .001
are sheltered from solar radiation, as shown from Figs. 2–5, Ta was Model 3 Typical air velocity at SOS 0.480 p < .001
found to be in average 1.08 °C lower than Tout, as well as 2.68 °C lower Model 4 RH at SOS at 2 pm 0.701 p < .001

Table 4
Descriptive statistical results of studied environmental factors.

Outdoors Semi-outdoor spaces (n = 63)

Tout Ta Tmrt Air velocity RH
Mean 30.80 °C 29.72 °C 32.40 °C 0.87 m/s 70.09%
Std Dev 0.43 °C 0.60 °C 1.77 °C 0.53 m/s 5.54%
CV 1 1.40% 2.02% 5.46% 60.92% 7.90%
Minimum 30.55 °C 28.45 °C 28.15 °C 0.17 m/s 57.81%
Maximum 32.40 °C 31.95 °C 36.62 °C 2.10 m/s 79.18%
1
Coefficient of variation

Table 5
Descriptive statistical results of studied geometrical variables.

Height Depth HDR VSR Orientation HFG GPR OSRA OSRP VCT VCFF
Mean 12.6 m 12.9 m 1.18 1.18 90.9° 57.5 m 0.66 0.09 0.27 0.68 6.17
Std Dev 12.1 m 11.2 m 0.69 0.54 56.4° 45.3 m 1.21 0.07 0.14 0.38 1.14
CV 1 96.03% 86.8% 58.47% 45.76% 62.05% 78.78% 183.33% 77.78% 51.85% 55.88% 18.48%
Minimum 2.3 m 2.0 m 0.06 0.22 0° 0m 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.18 4.82
Maximum 36.0 m 48.0 m 2.61 2.07 180° 156.5 m 3.82 0.38 0.49 1.43 9.84
1
Coefficient of variation.

Table 6
Comparison per building between Ta in SOS and Tout.

Building (number of SOS) Tout Ta DT p-value (p)

SO (n = 12) 30.86 °C 29.85 °C 1.01 °C p < .001
OA (n = 16) 30.55 °C 29.20 °C 1.35 °C p < .001
KA (n = 4) 32.40 °C 29.99 °C 2.41 °C p = .011
SV (n = 31) 30.69 °C 29.90 °C 0.79 °C p < .001

7
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Table 8
Descriptive statistical results of SET* and PMV*

SET* PMV*
MET = 1 MET = 1.5 MET = 2 MET = 1 MET = 1.5 MET = 2
Mean 26.43 °C 28.05 °C 29.51 °C +0.63 +0.94 +1.26
Std Dev 1.11 °C 1.34 °C 1.42 °C 0.42 0.38 0.38
Minimum 24.65 °C 25.57 °C 26.67 °C
0.10 +0.21 +0.49
Maximum 29.73 °C 30.61 °C 32.02 °C +1.81 +1.67 +1.92

regressions it was found that geometrical variables can signifi-
cantly influence the environmental factors. Regarding Ta, the geo-
metrical variables of VSR, HFG and OSRA explained 50.4% of the
variations; regarding Tmrt, VSR, HDR, GPR, HFG and height explained
66.8% of the variations; regarding air velocity, HDR and OSRP
explained 48.0% of the variations; and regarding RH, VSR, HDR,
HFG, GPR and OSRA explained 70.1% of the variations. Both versions
of volumetric compactness, traditional volumetric compactness
(VCT) and form factor (VCFF) were not found to influence any of
the environmental factors.
Regarding geometrical variables previously tested for SOS, this
study found a negative correlation between HFG and Ta, as well a
positive correlation between HFG and RH and Tmrt. It was found
also that GPR is negatively correlated with Tmrt and positively cor-
related with RH. Results show that VSR is positively correlated with
Ta and Tmrt and negatively correlated with RH. A positive correla-
tion was found between HDR and the environmental factors of Tmrt
and air velocity, as well as negative correlation between HDR and
RH. Also, a positive correlation was found between height and Tmrt.
Regarding geometrical variables used tested previously on
urban environmental performance studies, this study found that
both open space ratio variables (OSRA and OSRP) influence environ-
mental factors. On the one hand, OSRP was found to be negatively
correlated with air velocity. On the other hand, OSRA was found to
be positively correlated with Ta and negatively correlated with RH.
3.3. Thermal comfort in semi-outdoor spaces
The degree of thermal comfort achieved in SOS was estimated
based on measurements of Ta, Tmrt, air velocity and RH (assuming
a CLO of 0.3, and three different MET values). The SET* mean value
for all SOS fell within the ‘neutral’ category for 1 MET (+0.63) and
1.5 METs (+0.94), and within the ‘slightly warm’ category for 2
METs (+1.26), as shown in Table 8. Thermal comfort varied
depending on the activity type as shown in Fig. 7. None of SOS fell
on the ‘warm’ category (between +2 and +3 PMV*). For 1 MET,
14.29% of all SOS fell on the ‘slightly warm’ category, percentage
that gradually increased to 50.79% for 1.5 METs, and to 74.60%
for 2 METs. For 1 MET, 85.71% of SOS fell between
1 and +1
PMV*, percentage that gradually increased to 49.21% for 1.5 METs,
and to 25.40% for 2 METs.
SET* and PMV* were found to be positively and highly corre-
lated for all three activity types, as shown in Appendix A section
Table A6. For the sample of 63 SOS obtained in this study, Table 9
shows that among all four environmental factors air velocity has a
higher and negative correlation with both thermal indices (PMV*
and SET*) for all activity types. RH is positively correlated with
SET*, especially for 1.5 and 2 METs, and positively correlated with
PMV* for all activity types. Tmrt is negatively correlated with SET*,
especially for 1.5 and 2 METs, and negatively correlated with PMV*
for all activity types. No significant correlation was found between
Ta and both thermal indices.

3.4. Influence of geometrical variables on thermal comfort

Results also show the influence of geometrical variables on esti-

Fig. 7. Thermal comfort estimation in measured SOS depending on different
activity levels, based on Gagge’s PMV* index.
mations of thermal comfort based on the thermal indices of SET*
and PMV*. As shown in Appendix A section, Table A7 and
Table A8, HDR and OSRP are the only variables that explained sig-
nificantly the variations of SET* and PMV* when performing multi-
ple regressions. The geometrical variable of HDR is negatively
correlated with both thermal indices, while OSRP is positively cor-
related with them. As shown in Table 10, these two geometrical
variables explained the variations of SET* by 26.4%, 42.2% and

Table 9
Pearson linear correlation (r) between thermal indices and environmental factors.

SET* SET* SET* PMV* PMV* PMV*

(1 MET) (1.5 METs) (2 METs) (1 MET) (1.5 METs) (2 METs)
Ta r =
0.008 r =
0.008 r = +0.016 r =
0.048 r =
0.031 r =
0.002
p = .952 p = .948 p = .903 p = .711 p = .810 p = .988
Tmrt r =
0.138 r =
0.372 r =
0.472 r =
0.390 r =
0.510 r =
0.564
p = .282 p = .003 p < .001 p = .002 p < .001 p < .001
Air velocity r =
0.799 r =
0.911 r =
0.920 r =
0.884 r =
0.922 r = -0.914
p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
RH r = +0.157 r = +0.334 r = +0.427 r = +0.383 r = +0.464 r = +0.518
p = .220 p = .007 p < .001 p = .002 p < .001 p < .001

8
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al.
Table 10
Summary of the models having SET* and PMV* thermal índices as dependent variable.
Model Dependent variable R2 p-value (p)
Model 5a SET* (1 MET) at 2 pm 0.264 p <
Model 5b SET* (1.5 METs) at 2 pm 0.422 p <
Model 5c SET* (2 METs) at 2 pm 0.468 p <
Model 6a PMV* (1 MET) at 2 pm 0.430 p <
Model 6b PMV* (1.5 METs) at 2 pm 0.506 p <
Model 6c PMV* (2 METs) at 2 pm 0.515 p <
46.8%, and the variations of PMV* by 43.0%, 50.6% and 51.5%,
respectively, for 1 MET, 1.5 METs and 2 METs.
4. Discussion
This study assessed the design intention of all four studied
buildings on providing thermally comfortable environments with-
out the need to rely solely on indoor spaces acclimatized by
mechanical systems. These buildings opened up to climate, reinter-
preting the vernacular Malay veranda and following a contempo-
rary language, through SOS adapted to tropical mid-rise and
high-rise building forms [39]. The 63 SOS mentioned in this study
could be categorised in the following types: breezeway atria,
breezeway courtyards, skyterraces/skygardens and corridors with or
without greenery [40]. Although thermal comfort may vary accord-
ing each type of SOS, findings suggest that porous building forms
with SOS of this kind should be promoted for mid-rise and high-
rise buildings located in the warm-humid tropical context of Singa-
pore since it was found that they may deliver environmental and
thermal comfort benefits through the creation of microclimates,
which are linked to geometrical variables.
As shown in a study based on field surveys conducted in SOS of
Singapore, thermal comfort in semi-outdoor environments is
affected mainly by the interdependent relationship that exists
between the three environmental parameters of Ta, RH and air
velocity [71,72]. In outdoor environments, Ta, air velocity and solar
radiation are considered the main influential factors that deter-
mine thermal comfort [73], with solar radiation having a greater
potential to change subject thermal sensation than air movement
[74]. Nonetheless, in contrast to an outdoor environment, semi-
outdoor environments may receive low levels of solar radiation if
shaded [37,75]. In consequence, Tmrt may have a lower importance
than it has in outdoor environments, and instead, air velocity may
have a higher importance. In this study it is also shown that SOS do
not restrict air motion [76], on the contrary, it is very likely they
promote it due to geometrical characteristics that conduct natural
air flows. On the effect of solar radiation in studied SOS a mean dif-
ference of 2.68 °C was found between Tmrt and Ta during the typi-
cally warm hour of 2 pm, results that are very close to what has
been reported in a previous study developed in forecourts and cor-
ridors, where a difference of 1.8 °C was found between Tmrt and Ta
for SOS with greenery, and of 3.3 °C for SOS without greenery [77].
As shown in Figs. 2–5 one measurement point of Ta, Tmrt, RH and
air velocity was taken for some SOS with large characteristics (e.g.
SOS2 & SOS3 in SO building), and should be considered as a limita-
tion, however, for many SOS that were quite large two or even
three measurement points were taken.
4.1. Temperature difference between semi-outdoor spaces and
outdoors
Considering that SOS in this study were shaded during the per-
iod of assessment (2 pm), that solar radiation levels are lower in
semi-outdoor environments when compared to outdoors [75],
Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544
and that Ta, RH and air velocity are considered the main environ-
mental factors that affect thermal comfort in semi-outdoor envi-
ronments [71,72], greater importance was given to Ta over Tmrt
.001 in order to assess the role of SOS as buffer spaces. In this study a
.001 mean DT value of 1.01 °C, 1.35 °C, 2.41 °C and 0.79 °C was found
.001 between SOS and outdoors, for SO, OA, KA, and SV buildings,
.001 respectively. It is worth to note that the mean DT values shown
.001
.001
in Table 6 are six-day averaged values representing the typical
thermal behaviour of each SOS at 2 pm, however, higher DT values
were experienced in SOS of each building during some days, with
some SOS experiencing DT values above 2 °C. In some SOS of SO
building (e.g. SOS1), KA building (e.g. SOS32) and OA building
(e.g. SOS15, SOS20, SOS27, SOS28) the thermal environment may
be slightly influenced by leakage of cool air coming from adjacent
AC spaces. However, results are in line to what other studies sug-
gest. For instance, at pedestrian level pilotis are able to reduce
SET* by 6–10 °C and air temperature as much as 2–3 °C during
the hot summer of Guangzhou city [78]. Another study in the
humid subtropical city of Wuhan showed that SET* can be
decreased down to 9 °C under shaded pilotis during summer [79].
4.2. Influence of geometrical variables on environmental factors
Considering the multiple regression models (Model 1 – Model
4) only for explanatory purposes it was found that geometrical
variables can explain the variations in Ta, Tmrt, air velocity and
RH by 50.4%, 66.8%, 48.0% and 70.1%, respectively. The R2 values
found are limited to the geometrical variables addressed in each
model, to the characteristics found in all 63 SOS, and to the condi-
tions where the variables were tested (shaded SOS at 2 pm with a
measured mean outdoor temperature oscillating between 30.6 and
32.4 °C, as shown in Table 6, not considering rainy days; outdoor
RH values between 81.9 and 82.3%, and outdoor mean wind veloc-
ity values between 2.0 and 2.4 m/s [41]). Each coefficient in the
multivariate regressions has a physical meaning, for instance, in
model 1 when VSR increases one unit Ta increases 0.229 (22.9%
of a unit). It is worth to note that negative and positive signs of
the predictors in each multiple regression model are in line with
what literature suggest for those variables. Other variables, not
addressed in this study, that may influence the thermal behaviour
in SOS are building material properties such as albedo and emissiv-
ity, as well as urban morphology characteristics such as urban den-
sity, sky view factor and incident solar radiation [54,56,80,81].
Trade-offs were found between high and low levels of openness
in SOS. On the one hand, results show that the higher HDR the
higher the air velocity, however, SOS may also experience higher
Tmrt as HDR or height increases. High Tmrt values due to high HDR
and height values may be directly related to a high sky view factor
[80,82] and a lower self-shading effect of SOS from solar exposure.
Lower RH values due to higher HDR values may also be explained
also to a higher openness to the sky and solar exposure. It is worth
noting that this study shows that HDR is correlated with the envi-
ronmental factors of Tmrt, air velocity and RH, opposite to another
study where no correlation was found between HDR and the envi-
ronmental factors of Ta and air velocity [33].
A previous study found no relationship between VSR and Ta and
that VSR is positively correlated with air velocity (R2 = 0.53) [33].
This study demonstrates that VSR is positively correlated with Ta
and Tmrt, and negatively correlated with RH, which may be
explained by more sky exposure and solar radiation coming into
the space, increasing Ta and Tmrt, as well as lowering RH, however,
it did not identify VSR as a variable that significantly explains air
velocity.
In this study it was found that the higher the SOS is from ground
level the lower the temperature it experiences, which may be
explained due to a lower effect of the UHI in SOS with a higher ele-
9
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al.
vation. A reduction of approximately 0.90 °C in temperatures was
found for those SOS located in SV building with a higher HFG
(100 m above ground), when compared to SOS located at ground
level; and for OA building, located in the high-rise and high-
density Central Business District (CBD) area of Singapore with
hot temperatures due to UHI effect [13], a temperature reduction
of 0.60 °C was found between measured SOS at higher levels
(156 m above ground) and measured SOS closer to ground (83 m
above ground level). However, it was also found that the higher
the SOS is from ground level the higher Tmrt, which may be
explained to a higher openness to sky (or sky view factor) with less
shade coming from surrounding buildings as the elevation of the
SOS increases [56,58]. In this study no correlation was found
between HFG and air velocity, and urban density may be a possible
cause for this [83].
No correlation was found in the present study between orienta-
tion and Ta, Tmrt or RH, which may be explained due to similar
shaded conditions found between 2 and 3 pm in all 63 SOS, with
a sun tilted to northwest (with high solar angles that oscillated
between 69.0°
54.5° and solar azimuths between 305°
331°)
during the periods of study (June 10 – July 31). Out of the 63
SOS, only 5 (7.9%) have their frontage voids facing northwest.
The degree of openness of studied SOS may also explain why orien-
tation and those environmental factors are not correlated since
some SOS of the sample are ‘opened’ to more than one orientation.
Additionally, in this study no correlation was found between orien-
tation and air velocity, and it is very likely that the urban density
may be a factor influencing the results [83], with buildings block-
ing natural wind flows. Although no correlation was found
between orientation and the environmental factors at the hour of
study (2 pm) results obtained from other variables suggest that ori-
entation may be an important parameter to consider for SOS. For
instance, it is very likely that SOS with high HDR, high VSR or high
OSRA with east- or west-facing frontage voids may increase heat
discomfort because of solar radiation coming from lower solar
angles, increasing therefore Tmrt. The heat discomfort that these
above-mentioned conditions may cause may exacerbate even
more discomfort if they lack increased air movement. Nonetheless,
findings of a previous study suggest that orientation is a relevant
variable to consider in SOS, with a positive correlation found
between Ta and the prevailing wind orientation coming mainly
from south during the period of study (June and July) [33].
In this study a positive correlation was found between GPR and
VSR (r = +0.372, p = .002), as well as between GPR and HDR (r =
+0.435, p < .001), indicating that in this study SOS with higher level
of porosity and openness also allowed higher presence of greenery.
Only 36 (57.1%) out of the 63 SOS incorporated greenery. Similar to
the results of a study in an outdoor setting where outdoor air tem-
perature was found to be reduced by higher GPR [56], the present
study in semi-outdoor settings demonstrated also that the higher
the GPR in SOS the lower Tmrt is. Findings are in line with what lit-
erature suggests for the role that vegetation holds in improving
environmental conditions, providing shade and lower solar heat
gains in building surfaces [57,84] due to its low heat capacity
[85]. RH was also found to increase in studied SOS, which may
be due to added moisture in the air via plant evapotranspiration
[84]. It is worth to note that calculations of GPR are merely based
on the generalized rounded values of LAI shown in Table 3.
This study also tested variables previously measured in urban
environmental performance studies, among them traditional volu-
metric compactness (VCT), form factor (VCFF), perimeter-based open
space ratio (OSRP) and area-based open space ratio (OSRA). Results
suggest that both volumetric compactness indicators (VCT and VCFF)
may not be useful for assessing environmental performance at the
‘semi-outdoor space level’, since no multiple regression model con-
sider them a significant predictor. In this study both open space
10
Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544
ratio variables (OSRP and OSRA) were correlated to some environ-
mental factors. The variable OSRA explained the variations in Ta
and RH, which may be due to a higher openness to sky and solar
radiation, with higher OSRA resulting in higher Ta as well as in
lower RH. Originally, OSRP was used to measure the degree of
openness of a plot calculating the portion of the plot boundary
where transition from the plot to the street network takes place
[45,46], but in this study this variable was found to be useful for
assessing the environmental performance of SOS, showing that
the lower the frontage (exposed to outdoors) in relation to the total
perimeter of the SOS, the higher the air velocity. It is very likely
that a funnel effect that enhances air velocity may be taking place
due to a lower OSRP, ‘squeezing’ the wind through the narrow void.
4.3. Thermal comfort in semi-outdoor spaces
Gagge’s SET*, based on the two-node model of human thermal
regulation, is one of the most common indices for evaluating ther-
mal comfort in semi-outdoor environments [63,64,74,78,79,86–
90]. It is considered the best predictor of observed thermal sensa-
tion votes in semi-outdoor environments [87], as well as a very
useful index for broadly explaining subject’s thermal preferences
concerning physical microclimatic parameters in outdoor and
semi-outdoor environments [89]. Occupants of semi-outdoor envi-
ronments expect more comfortable conditions than do occupants
of outdoor environments and expect a range of thermal conditions
wider than on an indoor context [24,70,74]. In that sense, the ther-
mal indices of PET and UTCI were not used since they are com-
monly used for measuring heat stress in outdoor environments,
although they have been used for studying semi-outdoor environ-
ments [91,92]. The thermal index of Fanger’s PMV was not used
either since it was developed for indoor spaces, although has been
used also for studying SOS [93]. OUT_SET*, an adaptation of SET*
for outdoor settings, was not used in this study either since it
was primarily developed for outdoor conditions also [94], although
it has also been used for assessing thermal comfort in SOS [24,75].
Gagge’s PMV* is considered the counterpart of SET*, however, it
is a less known index and it has been scarcely used in literature
[95]. Nonetheless, it is one of the most advanced heat budget mod-
els since it improves the latent heat fluxes of Fanger’s PMV [62].
Although it is widely common to find in literature regarding out-
door environments Gagge’s conciliation of SET* with Fanger’s
PMV (comfortable: 20–26 °C SET; slightly warm: 26–30 °C SET;
warm: 30–34 °C SET; hot: 34–37 °C; and very hot/intolerable:
>37 °C SET) [60,96,97], in this study PMV* was used instead since
Fanger’s PMV is based primarily in terms of heat load and its
response by definition to changes in relative humidity or vapour
pressure is minor [60].
Thermal comfort estimations are in line with the thermal com-
fort upper thresholds suggested for SOS by other studies: 32 °C
SET* [88] and 32.8 °C SET [74]. Only one SOS (SOS7 in SO building)
exceeded the threshold of 32 °C as shown in Table 8, however,
when computed for PMV* it results in +1.92 PMV*, within the
‘slightly warm’ category (between +1 and +2 PMV*). If SOS are to
be promoted as spaces for social interaction in buildings located
in highly dense cities with warm climates, and considering that
Singaporeans have a higher preference for spending time outdoors,
it is of outmost importance that they provide environmental con-
ditions suitable for that purpose. Thermal dissatisfaction is gener-
ally measured with people voting +2 or +3 on the ASHRAE thermal
sensation scale [67]. Overheating may occur when a given propor-
tion (say 20%) vote +2 or +3 on the ASHRAE scale [98]. Considering
the latter, this study shows that regardless the activity level all
measured SOS are below the ‘warm category’ (between +2 and
+3 PMV*) threshold, as shown in Fig. 7, and are able to provide
comfortable environmental conditions even at the typically warm
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al.
hour of 2 pm where SOS are shaded. There is no overheating risk
regardless the activity types.
Since SET* and PMV* estimations were found to be negatively
correlated with air velocity, as shown in Table 9, some SOS had
low SET* and PMV* values due to high air velocity values, even if
having high Tmrt values. In this study SOS that experienced high
air velocities also experienced high Tmrt values (r = +0.531,
p < .001) as shown in the Appendix A section, Table A5, which
may explain why Tmrt is also significantly and negatively correlated
with SET* and PMV*. Based on the above, to promote thermal com-
fort, it is very important that SOS serve not only as thermal buffers
that reduce air temperature and incoming solar radiation, but also
promote air movement, as it is suggested in other semi-outdoor
studies [33,93]. SET* and PMV* estimations were also found to be
positively correlated with RH showing that higher humidity levels
can increase thermal discomfort, however, no correlation was
found between the thermal indices and Ta, although Ta and RH
are negatively correlated (r = -0.425, p < .001) as shown in the
Appendix A section, Table A5. The latter may be occurring due to
how Gagge’s SET* and PMV* are computed, where higher impor-
tance is given to the responsiveness to changing humidity and to
the vapour permeability of the clothing worn [60].
Out of the 63 studied SOS only 2 have fans installed and its
influence on the air velocity behaviour was not considered rele-
vant. In SO building SOS2 had its fans turned off during the period
of measurements, and in KA building SOS29 air velocities were low
even with fans. This measurement-based study proves that SOS
can passively enhance thermal comfort by increasing air velocity
(as well as lowering Ta, Tmrt and RH) by its own geometrical means,
however, results regarding air velocities should be taken carefully
since measurements were quite limited (for each SOS six measure-
ments between 10am and 4 pm, for 1 or 2 days). This wind velocity
enhancement in SOS may be of benefit considering the generally
light wind conditions of Singapore (<2.5 m/s) [41]. Thermal com-
fort (between
1 and +1 PMV*) can be achieved in 85.7% of SOS
of studied mid-rise and high-rise buildings considering a CLO of
0.3 and especially for 1 MET, percentage that may be related to a
previous survey-based study developed in SV building where
91.7% of surveyees say to feel thermally comfortable in skyterraces,
with a microclimate linked not only to thermal comfort but also to
self-reported energy use and social interaction [38].
4.4. Influence of geometrical variables on thermal comfort
Results show that those geometrical variables correlated with
air velocity (HDR and OSRP) are also correlated with the thermal
indices of SET* and PMV*. Considering the multiple regression
models (Model 5a, 5b and 5c and Model 6a, 6b and 6c) only for
explanatory purposes it was found that HDR and OSRP can explain
the variations in estimated SET* by 26.4%, 42.2% and 46.8%, and the
variations in estimated PMV* by 43.0%, 50.6% and 51.5%, respec-
tively, for 1 MET, 1.5 METs and 2 METs. In model 6a, for instance,
when HDR increases one unit PMV* decreases 0.201 (20.1% of a
unit).
The present study found that HDR is negatively correlated to
SET* and PMV*, as shown in Appendix A section, Tables A7 and
A8, which means that the higher HDR the more comfortable occu-
pants may be in SOS, likely due to an increase in air velocity,
although in this sample (n = 63) Tmrt may also increase. The latter
was similarly shown in a previous study where height and HDR
were negatively correlated to PMV thermal sensation votes
(R2 = 0.13 and R2 = 0.07, respectively) as well [33]. This previous
study also found a negative correlation between VSR and PMV ther-
mal sensation votes (R2 = 0.12), not found in the present study,
which may be explained due to the fact that no relationship was
found between VSR and air velocity either. The urban performance
11
Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544
indicator of OSRP was not only correlated with air velocity but also
correlated with the thermal indices of SET* and PMV*. A positive
correlation was found between OSRP and the estimated SET* and
PMV* values, which means that the lower the frontage in relation
to the total SOS perimeter, the more comfortable occupants may be
in SOS, especially due to an increase in air velocity most likely tak-
ing place due to a funnel effect.
5. Conclusions
The present study measured 63 semi-outdoor spaces (SOS) in
four different mid-rise and high-rise buildings located in the
warm-humid tropical city of Singapore, and provides new findings
on the role of SOS, as form-based strategies, in delivering environ-
mental and thermal comfort outcomes. The findings of this study
are as follows:
 SOS act as thermal buffer spaces, with air temperature signifi-
cantly lower than outdoors, with a mean typical DT of
1.01 °C, 1.35 °C, 2.41 °C and 0.79 °C for School of the Arts
(SO), OASIA Hotel Downtown (OA), Kampung Admiralty (KA)
and Skyville@Dawson (SV), respectively.
 As shown in the multiple regression analyses, SOS can be char-
acterized by geometrical variables, which are able to explain
variations in both environmental factors (Ta, Tmrt, air velocity
and RH) and thermal comfort indices (SET* and PMV*).
 Variations in Ta can be explained (R2 = 0.504) by the geometrical
variables of void-to-solid ratio (VSR), height from ground level
(HFG) and area-based open space ratio (OSRA). Variations in Tmrt
can be explained (R2 = 0.668) by the geometrical variables of
void-to-solid ratio (VSR), height-to-depth ratio (HDR), green plot
ratio (GPR), height from ground level (HFG) and height. Varia-
tions in air velocity can be explained (R2 = 0.480) by the geo-
metrical variables of height-to-depth ratio (HDR) and
perimeter-based open space ratio (OSRP). Variations in RH can
be explained (R2 = 0.701) by the geometrical variables of void-
to-solid ratio (VSR), height-to-depth ratio (HDR), height from
ground level (HFG), green plot ratio (GPR) and area-based open
space ratio (OSRA).
 Based on the estimated percentage of SOS falling within the
‘neutral’ categories (between
1 and +1 PMV*), thermal com-
fort was found to be achieved in 85.7% of SOS, considering 1
MET and a CLO of 0.3, with air velocity playing an important
role on providing thermal comfort. None exceeded the limit of
+2 PMV* (warm category).
 The geometrical variables of height-to-depth ratio (HDR) and
perimeter-based open space ratio (OSRP) explained the varia-
tions of thermal comfort, when estimated with SET* (R2 ranging
between 0.264 and 0.468, which varied depending on the activ-
ity level) and PMV* (R2 ranging between 0.430 and 0.515, which
varied depending on the activity level).
This study links form to the creation of microclimate which
depends on specific geometrical variables that help protect from
solar exposure, enhance wind movement, and allow intensive
greenery. Findings provide a better understanding of SOS which
can help designers explore design strategies focused on creating
thermally comfortable spaces in mid-rise and high-rise buildings.
In this way architects and designers may consider studied geomet-
rical variables in early design stages to achieve high environmental
performance and thermal comfort in SOS. In addition, the use of
SOS should be encouraged by building codes and studied geomet-
rical variables should be considered by policymakers when devel-
oping policies focused on the environmental performance of
buildings.
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Since in this study diverse types of SOS were measured (breeze- Declaration of Competing Interest
way atria, breezeway courtyards, skyterraces/skygardens and corri-
dors with or without greenery) future studies should further The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
investigate this aforementioned taxonomy in order to find how cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
microclimates and thermal comfort may vary according to types to influence the work reported in this paper.
and how the influence of geometrical variables may vary according
each type. Thermal comfort estimations shown in this study, based
on SET* and PMV* thermal indices, should be further validated
Acknowledgements
with post-occupancy thermal comfort surveys in SOS with similar
settings. Although SOS were shaded, with results suggesting that
We extend our gratitude to the Friends of the University of
air velocity plays a higher role than Tmrt on providing thermal com-
Navarra for the scholarship supporting corresponding author’s
fort, further research should also delve on the role of SOS as ther-
PhD programme. Likewise, to University of Navarra, Obra Social
mal buffer spaces considering not only Ta but also Tmrt and global
‘la Caixa’ and Caja Navarra Bank Foundation for their Mobility Pro-
radiation. In order to develop predictive statistical models for ther-
gram grant given to the corresponding author that allowed his
mal comfort evaluation in SOS, future studies should single out the
research stay at National University of Singapore (NUS). Special
variables used to characterize the SOS by means of building energy
thanks to Mr. Wong Mun Summ, founding director of WOHA Archi-
simulations. In this study some SOS were contiguous, however, the
tects, for supporting this research and managing the access to stud-
effect of this adjacency, which may be beneficial, should be further
ied buildings. We would like to deeply thank the managers and
studied. Last, further research should also deepen on the effect of
executives of School of the Arts (SOTA) and Far East Hospitality
porous building forms with SOS on cutting down energy consump-
Management of OASIA Hotel Downtown, Singapore for allowing
tion by AC, increasing indoor thermal comfort and reducing indoor
the access to each respective building. We also acknowledge the
overheating risk in warm-humid tropical contexts.
kind permission from the Housing & Development Board (HDB)
and Tanjong Pagar Town Council to access the public housing
CRediT authorship contribution statement shown in this paper (Kampung Admiralty and Skyville@Dawson).
Finally, we acknowledge the work of Megha Jagdish Bilgi and Bha-
Juan Gamero-Salinas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Inves- vya Hemant Gandhi, former students of the NUS Master of Science,
tigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review Integrated Sustainable Design (Msc ISD), for their collaboration
& editing, Visualization, Project administration. Nirmal Kishnani: during the measurements stage of all four studied buildings.
Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision. Aurora Monge-Barrio: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Jesús López-Fidalgo: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - Appendix A
review & editing. Ana Sánchez-Ostiz: Conceptualization, Method-
ology, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.

Table A1
Multivariate regression measuring the influence of geometrical variables on Ta (Model 1).
1
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized Coefficient p-value (p) VIF
Coefficients Std. Error
(Intercept) 29.801651 0.156659 – p < .001
VSR 0.229348 0.108355 0.2070185 p = .039 1.14
HFG
0.009623 0.001295
0.7243118 p < .001 1.13
OSRA 2.287618 0.790223 0.2687342 p = .005 1.02
1
VIF should be less than (1 / (1 - R2)) = 1 / (1 – 0.504)) = 2.016.

Table A2
Multivariate regression measuring the influence of geometrical variables on Tmrt (Model 2).
1
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized Coefficient p-value (p) VIF
Coefficients Std. Error
(Intercept) 29.578696 0.379597 – p < .001
VSR 1.003109 0.275520 0.3076479 p = .002 1.22
HDR 1.063811 0.260795 0.4442801 p < .001 2.03
GPR
1.040728 0.135513
0.7217491 p < .001 1.51
HFG 0.012785 0.003365 0.3269789 p < .001 1.27
Height 0.047975 0.014693 0.3261997 p = .002 1.71

Table A3
Multivariate regression measuring the influence of geometrical variables on air velocity (Model 3).
1
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized Coefficient p-value (p) VIF
Coefficients Std. Error
(Intercept) 1.23526 0.14145 – p < .001
HDR 0.18841 0.06698 0.2649722 p = .007 1.02
OSRP
2.18785 0.34290
0.6009868 p < .001 1.02

12
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

Table A4
Multivariate regression measuring the influence of geometrical variables on RH (Model 4).
1
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized Coefficient p-value (p) VIF
Coefficients Std. Error
(Intercept) 80.014221 1.235702 – p < .001
VSR
5.643044 0.824994
0.5538095 p < .001 1.25
HDR
4.051442 0.607951
0.5414308 p < .001 1.26
HFG 0.037190 0.009932 0.3043508 p < .001 1.26
GPR 2.149662 0.401095 0.4770462 p < .001 1.51
OSRA
29.229477 5.772975
0.3733300 p < .001 1.04
1
VIF should be less than (1 / (1 - R2)) = (1 / (1 – 0.701)) = 3.341

Table A5
Pearson linear correlation (r) between environmental factors.

Ta Tmrt Air velocity RH

Ta – r =
0.217p = .088 r = +0.081p = .526 r =
0.425p < .001
Tmrt r =
0.217p = .088 – r = +0.531p < .001 r =
0.494p < .001
Airvelocity r = +0.081p = .526 r = +0.531p < .001 – r =
0.309p = .014
RH r =
0.425p < .001 r =
0.494p < .001 r =
0.309p = .014 –

Table A6
Pearson linear correlation (r) between thermal indices.

PMV*, 1 MET PMV*, 1.5 METs PMV*, 2 METs

SET*, 1 MET r = +0.956 p < .001 – –
SET*, 1.5 METs – r = +0.984 p < .001 –
SET*, 2 METs – – r = +0.991 p < .001

Table A7
Multivariate regression measuring the influence of geometrical variables on SET* (Model 5a, 5b and 5c).
1
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized Coefficient p-value (p) VIF
Coefficients Std. Error
SET* with 1 MET
(Intercept) 26.0363 0.3547 – p < .001
HDR
0.3789 0.1679
0.2528464 p = .028 1.02
OSRP 3.1482 0.8598 0.4103366 p < .001 1.02
SET* with 1.5 METs
(Intercept) 27.4051 0.3787 – p < .001
HDR
0.5554 0.1793
0.3076523 p = .003 1.02
OSRP 4.8695 0.9180 0.5268890 p < .001 1.02
SET* with 2 METs
(Intercept) 28.6654 0.3873 – p < .001
HDR
0.5702 0.1834
0.2962758 p = .003 1.02
OSRP 5.6427 0.9390 0.5727268 p < .001 1.02
1
VIF should be less than (1 / (1 - R2)) = (1 / (1 – 0.264)) = 1.359 for 1 MET; (1 / (1 – 0.422)) = 1.730 for 1.5 METs; and (1 / (1 – 0.468)) = 1.879 for 2 METs

Table A8
Multivariate regression measuring the influence of geometrical variables on PMV* (Model 6a, 6b and 6c).
1
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized Coefficient p-value (p) VIF
Coefficients Std. Error
PMV* with 1 MET
(Intercept) 0.48746 0.11730 – p < .001
HDR
0.20118 0.05554
0.3572317 p < .001 1.02
OSRP 1.43576 0.28436 0.4979781 p < .001 1.02
PMV* with 1.5 METs
(Intercept) 0.7707 0.1001 – p < .001
HDR
0.1895 0.0474
0.3672452 p < .001 1.02
OSRP 1.4665 0.2427 0.5552015 p < .001 1.02
PMV* with 2 METs
(Intercept) 1.06154 0.09789 – p < .001
HDR
0.17495 0.04635
0.3435738 p < .001 1.02
OSRP 1.51014 0.23730 0.5792715 P < .001 1.02
1
VIF should be less than (1 / (1 - R2)) = (1 / (1 – 0.430)) = 1.754 for 1 MET; (1 / (1 – 0.506)) = 2.022 for 1.5 METs; and (1 / (1 – 0.515)) = 2.060 for 2 METs.

13
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al. Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544

References [26] S. Hagan, Taking Shape: A New Contract Between Architecture and Nature, The
Architectural Press, Oxford, 2001.
[27] K. Yeang, The skyscraper bioclimatically considered : a design primer,
[1] R. Vale, B. Vale, T.H. Karyono, Introduction: The Tropics: A Region Defined by
Academy Editions, London, 1996.
Climate, in: Sustain. Build. Built Environ. to Mitigate Clim. Chang. Trop., 2017:
[28] C.K. Tang, A. Elyana, Residential thermal comfort in tropics - Bunker house, in:
pp. 1–6. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49601-6_1.
T.H. Karyono, R. Vale, B. Vale (Eds.), Sustain. Build. Built Environ. to Mitigate
[2] James Cook University, State of the Tropics Leadesrhip Group, State of the
Clim. Chang. Trop. Concept. Pract. Approaches, Springer International
Tropics. 2014 Report, 2014. https://www.jcu.edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/
Publishing, 2017: pp. 215–229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
publications/2014/2014-report/State-of-the-Tropics-2014-Full-Report.pdf.
49601-6_15.
[3] E.M. Fischer, K.W. Oleson, D.M. Lawrence, Contrasting urban and rural heat
[29] I.M. Salinas, Arquitectura de los grupos étnicos de Honduras, Ediciones,
stress responses to climate change: heat stress response to climate change,
Editorial Guaymuras, Tegucigalpa, 1991.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 (3) (2012), https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050576.
[30] A. Tablada, F. De Troyer, B. Blocken, J. Carmeliet, H. Verschure, On natural
[4] J.C. Gamero-Salinas, A. Monge-Barrio, A. Sánchez-Ostiz, Overheating risk
ventilation and thermal comfort in compact urban environments – the Old
assessment of different dwellings during the hottest season of a warm
Havana case, Build. Environ. 44 (9) (2009) 1943–1958, https://doi.org/
tropical climate, Build. Environ. 171 (2020) 106664, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.01.008.
buildenv.2020.106664.
[31] M. Philokyprou, A. Michael, S. Thravalou, I. Ioannou, Thermal performance
[5] N. Bhikhoo, A. Hashemi, H. Cruickshank, Improving thermal comfort of low-
assessment of vernacular residential semi-open spaces in Mediterranean
income housing in Thailand through passive design strategies, Sustainability. 9
climate, Indoor Built Environ. 27 (8) (2018) 1050–1068.
(2017) 1440, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081440.
[32] A. Olgyay, D. Lyndon, V.W. Olgyay, J. Reynolds, K. Yeang, Design with Climate:
[6] A. Hashemi, N. Khatami, Effects of solar shading on thermal comfort in low-
Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism - New and, expanded
income tropical housing, Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 235–244, https://doi.org/
Edition., Princeton University Press, 2015.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.025.
[33] Y. Tao, S.S.Y. Lau, Z. Gou, J.i. Zhang, A. Tablada, An investigation of semi-
[7] M. Zune, L. Rodrigues, M. Gillott, The vulnerability of homes to overheating in
outdoor learning spaces in the tropics: Spatial settings, thermal environments
Myanmar today and in the future: A heat index analysis of measured and
and user perceptions, Indoor Built Environ. 28 (10) (2019) 1368–1382, https://
simulated data, Energy Build. 223 (2020) 110201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19841115.
enbuild.2020.110201.
[34] S. Cui, P. Stabat, D. Marchio, Numerical simulation of wind-driven natural
[8] R.T. Corlett, Essay 2: The impacts of climate change in the Tropics, in: State
ventilation: Effects of loggia and facade porosity on air change rate, Build.
Trop. 2014 Rep., James Cook University, 2014: pp. 155–161. https://www.jcu.
Environ. 106 (2016) 131–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.03.021.
edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/publications/2014/2014-essay-pdfs/Essay-2-
[35] J. Niu, Some significant environmental issues in high-rise residential building
Corlett.pdf.
design in urban areas, Energy Build. 36 (12) (2004) 1259–1263, https://doi.
[9] Y. Hijioka, E. Lin, J.J. Pereira, R.T. Corlett, X. Cui, G.E. Insarov, R.D. Lasco, E.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2003.07.005.
Lindgren, A. Surjan, Asia, in: Clim. Chang. 2014 Impacts, Adapt. Vulnerability.
[36] N. Kishnani, Climate, buildings and occupant expectations: a comfort-based
Part B Reg. Asp. Contrib. Work. Gr. II to Fifth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim.
model for the design and operation of office buildings in hot humid conditions
Chang. [1] G.O. Magrin, J.A. Marengo, J.-P. Boulang. M.S. Bu, 2014: pp. 1499–
(PhD thesis), Curtin University (2002), http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/
1566. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap24_
2325.
FINAL.pdf.
[37] J.-H. Bay, Sustainable community and environment in tropical Singapore high-
[10] Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL), Chilling Prospects: Tracking Sustainable
rise housing: the case of Bedok Court condominium, Cambridge Univ. Press. 8
Cooling for All - 2019, 2019. https://www.seforall.org/sites/default/files/2019-
(2004) 333–343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S135913550400034X.
11/CP-2019-SEforALL.pdf.
[38] J.C. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio, B. Gandhi, M. Bilgi, A.
[11] M. Isaac, D.P. van Vuuren, Modeling global residential sector energy demand
Sánchez-Ostiz, The Influence Of Building Form On Energy Use, Thermal
for heating and air conditioning in the context of climate change, Energy
Comfort And Social Interaction. A Post-occupancy Comparison Of Two High-
Policy. 37 (2009) 507–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.051.
rise Residential Buildings In Singapore, in: Proc. 35th PLEA Int. Conf. Plan. Post
[12] M. Santamouris, Cooling the buildings – past, present and future, Energy Build.
Carbon Cities. A Coruña, 1-3 Sept. 2020. PLEA 2020 Conf., A Coruña, Spain,
128 (2016) 617–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.034.
2020.
[13] N.H. Wong, Tropical Urban Heat Islands, Taylor & Francis, London (2009),
[39] M.S. Wong, R. Hassell, A. Yeo, Garden City, Megacity: Rethinking Cities For the
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203931295.
Age of Global Warming, CTBUH J. (2016) 46–51.
[14] W.T.L. Chow, M. Roth, Temporal dynamics of the urban heat island of
[40] P. Bingham-Hall, WOHA, Garden City Mega City: rethinking cities for the age
Singapore, Int. J. Climatol. 26 (15) (2006) 2243–2260.
of global warming, Pesaro Publishing Singapore (2016).
[15] L. Ruefenacht, J.A. Acero, Strategies for Cooling Singapore. A catalogue of 80+
[41] Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS), Climate of Singapore, (2020). http://
measures to mitigate urban heat island and improve outdoor thermal comfort,
www.weather.gov.sg/ (accessed May 25, 2020).
(2017). doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000258216.
[42] R. Powell, K.S. Tay, A.K.S. Lim, Line, edge & shade : the search for a design
[16] N. Borzino, S. Chng, M.O. Mughal, R. Schubert, Willingness to Pay for Urban
language in tropical Asia : Tay Kheng Soon & Akitek Tenggara, Page One
Heat Island Mitigation : A Case Study of Singapore (2020) 1–26, https://doi.
Publisher, Singapore, 1997.
org/10.3390/cli8070082.
[43] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 7726:1998 -
[17] Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Circular to professional institutes:
Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Instruments for measuring
Refinements to gross floor area (GFA) rules to facilitate more efficient
physical quantities, (1998).
calculation of GFA, 2019. https://www.corenet.gov.sg/media/2268613/dc19-
[44] M.B. Pont, P. Haupt, The Spacemate: Density and the typomorphology of the
11.pdf.
urban fabric, in: F. van Hoeven, H. Rosemann (Eds.), Urban. Lab. Cities Reg.
[18] J. Pomeroy, Skycourts and skygardens: towards a vertical urban theory,
Prog. Res. Issues Urban. 2007, IOS Press, Delft, 2007: pp. 11–26.
University of Westminster (2016).
[45] E. Bobkova, L.H. Marcus, M.B. Pont, Multivariable measures of plot systems:
[19] N. Kishnani, Ecopuncture: Transforming Architecture and Urbanism in Asia,
describing the potential link between urban diversity and spatial form based
BCI Media Group, 2019.
on the spatial capacity concept, Proc, 11th Sp., Syntax Symp, SSS2017, Lisbon,
[20] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, The Energy and
Portugal, 2017.
Resources Institute, Introduction to National Rating System - GRIHA. An
[46] A. Vialard, Measures of the fit between street network, urban blocks and
evaluation tool to help design, build, operate, and maintain a resource-efficient
building footprints, in: M. Greene, J. Reyes, A. Castro (Eds.), Proc. 8th Sp,
built environment, (2010). www.teriin.org.
Syntax Symp, SSS2012, Santiago de Chile, 2012.
[21] Institute for Tropical Architecture (IAT), Costa Rican Institute of Technical
[47] L. Bourdic, S. Salat, C. Nowacki, Assessing cities: a new system of cross-scale
Norms (INTECO), RESET. Requirements for Sustainable Building in the Tropics.,
spatial indicators, Build. Res. Inf. 40 (5) (2012) 592–605.
2012. http://www.arquitecturatropical.org/.
[48] S. Salat, F. Labbé, C. Nowacki, Cities and Forms: On Sustainable Urbanism,
[22] C. Chun, A. Kwok, A. Tamura, Thermal comfort in transitional spaces—basic
Hermann, Paris, 2011.
concepts: literature review and trial measurement, Build. Environ. 39 (10)
[49] B.L. Ong, Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture and urban
(2004) 1187–1192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.003.
planning, Landscape Urban Plann. 63 (4) (2003) 197–211, https://doi.org/
[23] C. Poggi, A. Rogora, G. Scudo, Evaluation of Environmental Control of
10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00191-3.
Transitional Microclimatic Spaces in Temperate Mediterranean climate, in:
[50] J.M.O. Scurlock, G.P. Asner, S.T. Gower, Global Leaf Area Index from Field
R. Rawal, S. Manu, A. Shah, D. Batra (Eds.), 30th Int, CEPT University,
Measurements, 1932-2000, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. (2001). doi:
Ahmedabad, PLEA Conf. Sustain. Habitat Dev. Soc. Choos. W. Forward., 2014,
https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/584.
pp. 85–92.
[51] P. Saadatjoo, M. Mahdavinejad, G. Zhang, A study on terraced apartments and
[24] J. Spagnolo, R. de Dear, A field study of thermal comfort in outdoor and semi-
their natural ventilation performance in hot and humid regions, Build. Simul.
outdoor environments in subtropical Sydney Australia, Build. Environ. 38 (5)
11 (2) (2018) 359–372, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-017-0407-7.
(2003) 721–738, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00209-3.
[52] E. Salleh, Tropical urban street canyons, in: J.-H. Bay, B.-L. Ong (Eds.), Trop.
[25] G.V. Maragno, H.C. Roura, Impacts of form-design in shading transitional
Sustain. Archit. Soc. Environ. Dimens., 1st ed., Architectural Press, Elsevier,
spaces: The Brazilian veranda, in: P. Hájek, J. Tywoniak, A. Lupíšek, J.
Oxford, 2006: pp. 202–217.
Růžička, K. Sojková (Eds.), CESB 2010 Prague Cent, Department of Building
[53] A.N. Kakon, M. Nobuo, S. Kojima, T. Yoko, Assessment of Thermal Comfort in
Structures and CIDEAS Research Centre, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech
Respect to Building Height in a High-Density City in the Tropics, Am. J. Eng.
Technical University, Prague, Eur. Towar. Sustain. Build. ’From Theory to
Appl. Sci. 3 (3) (2010) 545–551, https://doi.org/10.3844/
Pract., 2010.
ajeassp.2010.545.551.

14
J. Gamero-Salinas, N. Kishnani, A. Monge-Barrio et al.
[54] C.K. Heng, L.C. Malone-Lee, J. Zhang, Relationship between density, urban form
and environmental performance, in: J.-H. Bay, S. Lehmann (Eds.), Grow.
Compact Urban Form, Density Sustain., Routledge, London, 2017: pp. 271–286.
doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315563831.
[55] S. Salat, D. Vialan, C. Nowacki, A common metrics and set of indicators for
assessing buildings and urban fabric sustainability performance, in: P. Hájek, J.
Tywoniak, A. Lupíšek, J. Růžička, K. Sojková (Eds.), CESB 2010 Prague Cent,
Department of Building Structures and CIDEAS Research Centre, Faculty of
Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University, Prague, Eur. Towar. Sustain.
Build. ’From Theory to Pract., 2010.
[56] S.K. Jusuf, W.N. Hien, Development of empirical models for an estate level air
temperature prediction in Singapore, in: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Countermeas. to
Urban Heat Islands, Berkeley, California, USA, 2009.
[57] N.H. Wong, A.Y.K. Tan, P.Y. Tan, N.C. Wong, Energy simulation of vertical
greenery systems, Energy Build. 41 (12) (2009) 1401–1408, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.010.
[58] S.K. Jusuf, Development of Estate Level Climate Related Impact Assessment
Framework and Air Temperature Prediction Within Urban Climatic Mapping
Method in Singapore, National University of Singapore (NUS), 2009.
[59] R.R. Gonzalez, Y. Nishi, A.P. Gagge, Experimental evaluation of standard
effective temperature a new biometeorological index of man’s thermal
discomfort, Int. J. Biometeorol. 18 (1) (1974) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01450660.
[60] A.P. Gagge, A.P. Fobelets, L.G. Berglund, A standard predictive index of human
response to the thermal environment, ASHRAE Trans. 92 (1986) 709–731.
[61] P. Höppe, The physiological equivalent temperature - a universal index for the
biometeorological assessment of the thermal environment, Int. J. Biometeorol.
43 (2) (1999) 71–75, https://doi.org/10.1007/s004840050118.
[62] G. Jendritzky, R. de Dear, G. Havenith, UTCI—Why another thermal index?, Int.
J. Biometeorol. 56 (3) (2012) 421–428, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-011-
0513-7.
[63] E. Walther, Q. Goestchel, The P.E.T. comfort index: Questioning the model,
Build. Environ. 137 (2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.03.054.
[64] M. Bogdan, E. Walther, Comfort modelling in semi-outdoor spaces, REHVA Eur.
HVAC J. 54 (2017) 23–25.
[65] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 7730:2005 -
Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Analytical determination and
interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD
indices and local thermal comfort criteria, (2005).
[66] European Committee for Standardization (CEN), EN 16798-1:2019. Energy
performance of buildings - Ventilation for buildings - Part 1: Indoor
environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy
performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal
environment, lighting and acou, 2019.
[67] American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2017. Thermal environmental
conditions for human occupancy, 2017.
[68] P. Höppe, Different aspects of assessing indoor and outdoor thermal comfort,
Energy Build. 34 (6) (2002) 661–665, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)
00017-8.
[69] M. Schweiker, comf: An R Package for Thermal Comfort Studies, R J. 8 (2016)
341–351.
[70] W. Yang, N.H. Wong, S.K. Jusuf, Thermal comfort in outdoor urban spaces in
Singapore, Build. Environ. 59 (2013) 426–435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2012.09.008.
[71] J.F. Song, N.H. Wong, K. Huang, Ventilation comfort chart for semi-outdoor
spaces in the tropics, in: 7th Int. Symp. Heating, Vent. Air Cond. - Proc. ISHVAC
2011, ScholarBank@NUS Repository, 2011. https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/
handle/10635/114095.
[72] J.F. Song, Thermal comfort for semi-outdoor spaces in the tropics, National
University of Singapore (NUS), 2007. http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/
10635/49060 (accessed September 4, 2020).
[73] E. Ng, V. Cheng, Urban human thermal comfort in hot and humid Hong Kong,
Energy Build. 55 (2012) 51–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.025.
[74] R.-L. Hwang, T.-P. Lin, Thermal Comfort Requirements for Occupants of Semi-
Outdoor and Outdoor Environments in Hot-Humid Regions, Archit. Sci. Rev. 50
(4) (2007) 357–364.
[75] R. de Dear, J. Spagnolo, Thermal comfort in outdoor and semi-outdoor
environments, Elsevier Ergon. B. Ser. 3 (2005) 269–276, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1572-347X(05)80044-8.
[76] K.S. Ahmed, Comfort in urban spaces: defining the boundaries of outdoor
thermal comfort for the tropical urban environments, Energy Build. 35 (1)
(2003) 103–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00085-3.
15
Energy & Buildings 230 (2021) 110544
[77] J.-H. Bay, N. Wang, Q. Liang, P. Kong, Socio-Environmental Dimensions in
Tropical Semi-open Spaces of High-rise Housing in Singapore, in: J.-H. Bay, B.-
L. Ong (Eds.), Trop. Sustain. Archit. Soc. Environ. Dimens., 1st ed., Architectural
Press, Elsevier, Oxford, 2006: pp. 59–82.
[78] T. Xi, Q. Li, A. Mochida, Q. Meng, Study on the outdoor thermal environment
and thermal comfort around campus clusters in subtropical urban areas, Build.
Environ. 52 (2012) 162–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.006.
[79] Z. Zhou, H. Chen, Q. Deng, A. Mochida, A Field Study of Thermal Comfort in
Outdoor and Semi-outdoor Environments in a Humid Subtropical Climate City,
J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 12 (1) (2013) 73–79, https://doi.org/
10.3130/jaabe.12.73.
[80] T.R. Oke, Street design and urban canopy layer climate, Energy Build. 11 (1-3)
(1988) 103–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(88)90026-6.
[81] N.H. Wong, S.K. Jusuf, N.I. Syafii, Y. Chen, N. Hajadi, H. Sathyanarayanan, Y.V.
Manickavasagam, Evaluation of the impact of the surrounding urban
morphology on building energy consumption, Sol. Energy 85 (1) (2011) 57–
71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.11.002.
[82] T. Kubota, M.A. Zakaria, S. Abe, D.H.C. Toe, Thermal functions of internal
courtyards in traditional Chinese shophouses in the hot-humid climate of
Malaysia, Build. Environ. 112 (2017) 115–131.
[83] V. Ok, M. Aygün, The variations of wind speeds with building density in urban
areas, Archit. Sci. Rev. 38 (2) (1995) 87–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00038628.1995.9696783.
[84] C.L. Tan, N.H. Wong, S.K. Jusuf, Effects of vertical greenery on mean radiant
temperature in the tropical urban environment, Landsc. Urban Plan. 127
(2014) 52–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.005.
[85] M. Taleghani, L. Kleerekoper, M. Tenpierik, A. van den Dobbelsteen, Outdoor
thermal comfort within five different urban forms in the Netherlands, Build.
Environ. 83 (2015) 65–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.014.
[86] J. Nakano, Evaluation of thermal comfort in semi-outdoor environment,
Waseda University (2003).
[87] J. Nakano, S.-I. Tanabe, Thermal Comfort and Adaptation in Semi-Outdoor
Environments, ASHRAE Trans. 110 Part I (2004) 543–553.
[88] J. Nakano, S. Tanabe, Thermal Adaptation and Comfort Zones in Urban Semi-
Outdoor Environments, Front. Built Environ. 6 (2020) 1–13. doi:https://doi.
org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00034.
[89] T.P. Lin, R. De Dear, R.L. Hwang, Effect of thermal adaptation on seasonal
outdoor thermal comfort, Int. J. Climatol. 31 (2011) 302–312, https://doi.org/
10.1002/joc.2120.
[90] Y. Hirayama, T. Asawa, R. Sato, I. Ohta, N. Sumi, Study on design method for
cool spot formation in a semi-outdoor space by combining various passive
cooling techniquesパッシブクーリング技術の複合による冷涼な半屋外空間の形成手法
に関する研究, J. Environ. Eng. (Transactions of AIJ) 83 (744) (2018) 193–203,
https://doi.org/10.3130/aije.83.193.
[91] C.W. Kwon, K.J. Lee, Outdoor thermal comfort in a transitional space of canopy
in schools in the UK, Sustain. 9 (2017) 1–17, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su9101753.
[92] P. Gugel-Quiroga, Assessing the use of UTCI in semi-outdoor spaces. A case
study in Hyderabad, India, in: Proc. 35th PLEA Int. Conf. Plan. Post Carbon
Cities. A Coruña, 1-3 Sept. 2020. PLEA 2020 Conf., 2020.
[93] B. Cao, M. Luo, M. Li, Y. Zhu, Thermal comfort in semi-outdoor spaces within an
office building in Shenzhen : A case study in a hot climate region of China,
Indoor Built Environ. 27 (2018) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1420326X17728152.
[94] R. de Dear, J. Pickup, An outdoor thermal comfort index (OUT-SET *) - Part I
- The model and its assumptions, in: R. de Dear, J.D. Kalma, T.R. Oke, A.
Auliciems (Eds.), Biometeorol. Urban Climatol. Turn Millenn., World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2000: pp. 279–
283.
[95] E. Prianto, P. Depecker, Optimization of architectural design elements in
tropical humid region with thermal comfort approach, Energy Build. 35 (3)
(2003) 273–280, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00089-0.
[96] K. Blazejczyk, Y. Epstein, G. Jendritzky, H. Staiger, B. Tinz, Comparison of UTCI
to selected thermal indices, Int. J. Biometeorol. 56 (3) (2012) 515–535, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00484-011-0453-2.
[97] S. Zare, N. Hasheminejad, H.E. Shirvan, R. Hemmatjo, K. Sarebanzadeh, S. Ahmadi,
Comparing Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) with selected thermal
indices/environmental parameters during 12 months of the year, Weather Clim.
Extremes 19 (2018) 49–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2018.01.004.
[98] Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), The Limits of
Thermal Comfort: Avoiding Overheating in European Buildings. CIBSE
Technical Memorandum 52 (TM52:2013), 2013.