No abstract

Despite the fact that buildings are designed for occupants in principle, evidence suggests buildings are often uncomfortable compared to the requirements of standards; difficult to control by occupants; and, operated inefficiently with regards to occupants' preferences and presence. Meanwhile, practitioners-architects, engineers, technology companies, building managers and operators, and policymakers-lack the knowledge, tools, and precedent to design and operate buildings optimally considering the complex and diverse nature of occupants. Building on the success of IEA EBC Annex 66 ("Definition and simulation of occupant behavior in buildings"; 2013-2017), a follow-up IEA EBC Annex 79 ("Occupantcentric building design and operation"; 2018-2023) has been developed to address gaps in knowledge, practice, and technology. Annex 79 involves international researchers from diverse disciplines like engineering, architecture, computer science, psychology, and sociology. Annex 79 and this review paper have four main areas of focus: (1) multi-domain environmental exposure, building interfaces, and human behavior; (2) data-driven occupant modeling strategies and digital tools; (3) occupant-centric building design; and (4) occupant-centric building operation. The objective of this paper is to succinctly report on the leading research of the above topics and articulate the most pressing research needs-planned to be addressed by Annex 79 and beyond.

No abstract

In recent years, research has emerged to quantitatively and qualitatively understand occupants' interactions with buildings. However, there has been surprisingly little research on building interfaces and how their design, context (e.g., location), and underlying logic impact their usability and occupants' perceived control, as well as the resulting comfort and energy performance. Research is needed to better understand how occupants interact with building interfaces in both commercial and residential applications; both applications are important to address as there are many differences in interface types, level of control and understanding, and even expectations of engagement. This paper provides a cursory review and discussion of select common building interfaces: windows, window shades/blinds, thermostats, and lighting controls. The goal of this paper is to review literature related to these human-building interfaces to explore interface characteristics, current design and use challenges, and relationships between building interfaces and occupants. Human-building interface interactions are complex, more research is needed to understand design, use, and characteristics. Common themes emerged throughout the literature review to explain occupant interactions (or lack of interactions) with building interfaces, which included thermal and visual comfort, ease and access of control, interface/control placement, poor interface/control design, lack of understanding, and social-behavioral dynamics.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Daylight has the potential to positively impact occupants and reduce energy consumption in buildings if utilized correctly (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002). However, unintended negative outcomes can arise from unsuccessful daylighting schemes. Common issues, such as glare and heat gain, are important architectural considerations in design of the building envelope, but less studied are corresponding interior design considerations (such as furniture layout and access to controls) and associated occupant interactions and appraisals. The purpose of the current study is to expose some of the key issues related to the occupant use of daylight and daylight control in perimeter offices, to discuss the contributing design process factors, and to suggest possible improvements to the design process including an increased role for interior designers. The research methodology followed a case study approach and included post‐occupancy evaluation (POE) questionnaires, interviews, and observations of a single higher education building with intentionally daylit perimeter offices. We discovered that the building in question was passed between three separate design teams throughout the design process, which may have contributed to the lack of integration between the architectural daylight design and the interior furniture and daylighting control fit‐out. More than 50% of total respondents (n = 35) reported obstructed blind controls due to poor furniture design and layout. Of these, nearly 60% of occupants modified their office environment to gain access to blind controls. Ultimately, findings of this study demonstrate the importance of an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to daylighting design, one that considers both the specific building context and the human response.