The importance of thermal comfort in different elevation for city planning

Abstract

During the summer months of 2009, the PET difference was 7.4 ºC while the corresponding difference was 6.4 ºC for 2010. During the winter months of 2009, the PET difference was 3.1 ºC while the corresponding difference was 3.7 ºC for 2010. It was determined that the 1179 m elevation difference between the two stations resulted in PET declines of 0.5 ºC for each 100 m. It was also observed that during days when the temperature is extremely low, due to the movement of cold spots to lower elevations, the PET values in Erzurum were observed to be lower than the ones in Palandoken mountains that are located only 13.5 km north-east of the city.

Ideal Model for Investigating Urban Form Effects on Urban Heat Island and Outdoor Thermal Comfort: A Review

“…Akbari and Konopacki (2004), Rosenfeld et al (1998) Currently, there is a great body of scientific research on the sustainable built environments, which prove the impact of urban form on sustainability Jenks and Burgess (2000). To have comfortable urban environments that fit human health, cities and urban environments should be free from dissatisfaction and discomfort Yilmaz et al (2013). Outdoor thermal comfort not only has a direct impact on human health, but also its standards are an important precursor to energy efficiency and sustainability.…”

“…Thermal comfort measurement indicators can be classified into two categories. Simple and experimental indicators that include several climatic elements, such ET 1 , RT 2 , HOP 3 , OP 4 , WCI 5 Ali-Toudert (2005), Oliver (2005),Yilmaz et al (2013). The second category includes complex analytical classifications including PET 6 Höppe (1999),Matzarakis et al (1999) ,SET7 Spagnolo and Dear (2003), PMV8 Fanger (1970), UTCI9 Bröde et al (…”