H.B.Gunay et al.Building and Environment 70(2013)31-47 子 reported lowest on north facades and highest on south facades that the number of monitored blind deployments during arrival [29,30,49,54.55].Shades on the north facade were rarely observed was 5.5 times more than that was during presence.Another as fully closed [30.76].Rea [53]and Zhang and Barrett [47]reported explanation suggests that on a sunny day the likelihood of turning that the mean shade occlusion in the east and west facades were the lights on and/or lowering the blinds increase,because the between that of the north facade and the south facade,however occupant wants to balance the brightness of the window areas with they were closer to that of the south facade.Given that the east and those of the interior 741.The increased probability of adaptive west facades are known to have greatest solar penetration depth measures upon arrival could also indicate that the adaptive mea- during the occupied hours and the south perimeter zones often sures taken for the previous occupancy period are no longer have the highest temperatures,the relative importance of the appropriate for current conditions.It is also worth noting that the temperature and the beam solar radiation may be discernible at convenience to undertake a certain adaptive behavior,once an different facade orientations.For example,to avoid frequent blind occupant is already standing upon arrival or prior to departure may use,occupants in the east and west facades can be more likely to increase the ease with which the adaptive action can be made [79]. leave their blinds fully closed.However,it has been suggested that However,no increase in the monitored blind deployment actions the effect of facade orientation itself can be treated as a dependant was observed during the occupant departure.It was concluded that variable of others such as temperature or beam solar radiation occupants do not adjust their blinds for predictive purposes during 24,46,65]:comparing adaptive behaviors in different facade ori- their absence [74].It should be noted that window opening/closing entations can give better insight into the relative significance of actions,unlike the shade deployment actions,were reported with a variables for future models. discernible frequency during departures [28].Likewise,the light switching was observed to take place during arrival and departure 2.1.5.HVAC system and operation 30,80,81].Switch-on actions during arrivals were frequently The type of HVAC system and operation may affect the adaptive explained by the daylight illuminances in the workplane [80.81]. occupant behaviors because occupants do not need to take as many. while the switch-off actions upon departure were explained with if any,adaptive measures if comfort conditions are automatically length of absence [561.Eilers et al.[30]showed that only about half provided.For example,occupants in a naturally ventilated building of the occupants switched off their lights if the departure was fol- may use their windows for different reasons than the occupants in lowed by an absence of two to four hours.Also,this ratio further a mechanically ventilated/cooled building.It was reported that if decreased once there were occupancy sensors or dimmed,indirect the indoor conditions were tightly controlled,occupants were lighting systems [30.57.It is also worth noting that not all these found less likely to undertake adaptive behaviors[24].For example, occupant behaviors aim at adapting their environment or adapting Rijal,et al.10]investigated the effect of open windows on thermal to their environment;instead,they can be habitual actions.For comfort and energy use in two mixed-mode buildings(i.e.build- example,occupants'action to turn on lights upon arrival,regardless ings with mechanical cooling with operable windows [77])and of brightness,can attest their arrival in a habitual manner [26]. seven naturally ventilated buildings.Occupants in the air- Therefore,not only the mere presence of the occupant,but also the conditioned buildings used their windows significantly less than state of presence (e.g.just arrived on a sunny day)should be occupants in the naturally ventilated buildings.Similarly,a study by incorporated in observational studies to be able to properly model Inkarojrit [32]revealed that the mean shade occlusion rate for the the adaptive occupant behavior. offices with air conditioning was 30%in comparison to the 49%for The number of occupants responsible for opening a particular those without.This can be interpreted that the validity of these window can also impact the overall window opening behavior observations should be restrained with the context of the moni- 46,781.Haldi and Robinson [46]observed a slight variation in the tored building or similar buildings window opening behavior in offices with one or two occupants. This was confirmed by similar observations by Herkel et al.[78]in 2.1.6.Occupancy pattern two or three person offices while studying manual blinds control Occupants'distance to the controlled device,time after their and by Moore et al.[74]in one to nine person offices while studying arrival or to their departure,or the number of occupants sharing light switching.However,in this case the aforementioned arrival the same controlled device may affect the likelihood of an adaptive and departure time intervals require further explanation.For behavior.Number of adaptive occupant behaviors per unit time was example,an occupant may walk into an already occupied office and found notably higher just after arrival and just before departure.For open the window.Considering this action as an intermediate example,Pfafferott and Herkel [40]suggested that window open- window opening behavior may mislead the model prediction ing is usually employed during arrival and departure.In between process.Haldi and Robinson [46]suggested a simplifying assump- the arrival and the departure,occupants were found less likely to tion that all occupants act independently and adaptive behavior is open or close a window.The arrival interval was defined as a time controlled by the most active (ie.occupant who uses the adaptive interval that was followed by the arrival and the departure interval control actions more frequently)occupant.Future studies may seek was defined as a time interval that was preceded by the departure for a justification for this assumption.On the contrary,occupants Haldi and Robinson [46]confirmed this observation and claimed tend to be more reluctant to use their blinds if others are present that the first five minutes after arrival and the last five minutes because of social constraints [24].It was reported that such control before the departure define a threshold limit for these arrival and actions in large offices were more frequently performed once departure intervals.Herkel et al.[78]suggested that arrival and most people had left because the action was judged to not impact departure time interval to be 15 min.Similar observations were anyone [82]. reported in the reviewed studies on the window shades and light The indoor conditions are a temporospatial distribution of a switching.This distinct behavior during arrival and departure was physical variable.For example,the illuminance even in a small of- explained with the occupant's preference to minimize the variation fice can vary significantly.In fact,Reinhart and Wienold [60 between the indoors and outdoors [73.This explanation suggests considered repositioning in the office as an independent adaptive that if an occupant walks in a dark office on a sunny day,he/she measure.Subsequently,Jakubiec and Reinhart [83]introduced likely switches the lights on upon arrival.This explanation can be adaptive zone concept in which occupants change position and refuted as the likelihood of blind deployment increases upon arrival view directions,rather than readily accepting the discomfort from in a sunny day as well.For example,Haldi and Robinson [65]stated glare or closing the blinds.It was reported that in a side-lit officereported lowest on north facades and highest on south facades [29,30,49,54,55]. Shades on the north facade were rarely observed as fully closed [30,76]. Rea [53] and Zhang and Barrett [47] reported that the mean shade occlusion in the east and west facades were between that of the north facade and the south facade, however they were closer to that of the south facade. Given that the east and west facades are known to have greatest solar penetration depth during the occupied hours and the south perimeter zones often have the highest temperatures, the relative importance of the temperature and the beam solar radiation may be discernible at different facade orientations. For example, to avoid frequent blind use, occupants in the east and west facades can be more likely to leave their blinds fully closed. However, it has been suggested that the effect of facade orientation itself can be treated as a dependant variable of others such as temperature or beam solar radiation [24,46,65]; comparing adaptive behaviors in different facade ori￾entations can give better insight into the relative significance of variables for future models. 2.1.5. HVAC system and operation The type of HVAC system and operation may affect the adaptive occupant behaviors because occupants do not need to take as many, if any, adaptive measures if comfort conditions are automatically provided. For example, occupants in a naturally ventilated building may use their windows for different reasons than the occupants in a mechanically ventilated/cooled building. It was reported that if the indoor conditions were tightly controlled, occupants were found less likely to undertake adaptive behaviors [24]. For example, Rijal, et al. [10] investigated the effect of open windows on thermal comfort and energy use in two mixed-mode buildings (i.e. build￾ings with mechanical cooling with operable windows [77]) and seven naturally ventilated buildings. Occupants in the air￾conditioned buildings used their windows significantly less than occupants in the naturally ventilated buildings. Similarly, a study by Inkarojrit [32] revealed that the mean shade occlusion rate for the offices with air conditioning was 30% in comparison to the 49% for those without. This can be interpreted that the validity of these observations should be restrained with the context of the moni￾tored building or similar buildings. 2.1.6. Occupancy pattern Occupants’ distance to the controlled device, time after their arrival or to their departure, or the number of occupants sharing the same controlled device may affect the likelihood of an adaptive behavior. Number of adaptive occupant behaviors per unit time was found notably higher just after arrival and just before departure. For example, Pfafferott and Herkel [40] suggested that window open￾ing is usually employed during arrival and departure. In between the arrival and the departure, occupants were found less likely to open or close a window. The arrival interval was defined as a time interval that was followed by the arrival and the departure interval was defined as a time interval that was preceded by the departure. Haldi and Robinson [46] confirmed this observation and claimed that the first five minutes after arrival and the last five minutes before the departure define a threshold limit for these arrival and departure intervals. Herkel et al. [78] suggested that arrival and departure time interval to be 15 min. Similar observations were reported in the reviewed studies on the window shades and light switching. This distinct behavior during arrival and departure was explained with the occupant’s preference to minimize the variation between the indoors and outdoors [73]. This explanation suggests that if an occupant walks in a dark office on a sunny day, he/she likely switches the lights on upon arrival. This explanation can be refuted as the likelihood of blind deployment increases upon arrival in a sunny day as well. For example, Haldi and Robinson [65] stated that the number of monitored blind deployments during arrival was 5.5 times more than that was during presence. Another explanation suggests that on a sunny day the likelihood of turning the lights on and/or lowering the blinds increase, because the occupant wants to balance the brightness of the window areas with those of the interior [74]. The increased probability of adaptive measures upon arrival could also indicate that the adaptive mea￾sures taken for the previous occupancy period are no longer appropriate for current conditions. It is also worth noting that the convenience to undertake a certain adaptive behavior, once an occupant is already standing upon arrival or prior to departure may increase the ease with which the adaptive action can be made [79]. However, no increase in the monitored blind deployment actions was observed during the occupant departure. It was concluded that occupants do not adjust their blinds for predictive purposes during their absence [74]. It should be noted that window opening/closing actions, unlike the shade deployment actions, were reported with a discernible frequency during departures [28]. Likewise, the light switching was observed to take place during arrival and departure [30,80,81]. Switch-on actions during arrivals were frequently explained by the daylight illuminances in the workplane [80,81], while the switch-off actions upon departure were explained with length of absence [56]. Eilers et al. [30] showed that only about half of the occupants switched off their lights if the departure was fol￾lowed by an absence of two to four hours. Also, this ratio further decreased once there were occupancy sensors or dimmed, indirect lighting systems [30,57]. It is also worth noting that not all these occupant behaviors aim at adapting their environment or adapting to their environment; instead, they can be habitual actions. For example, occupants’ action to turn on lights upon arrival, regardless of brightness, can attest their arrival in a habitual manner [26]. Therefore, not only the mere presence of the occupant, but also the state of presence (e.g. just arrived on a sunny day) should be incorporated in observational studies to be able to properly model the adaptive occupant behavior. The number of occupants responsible for opening a particular window can also impact the overall window opening behavior [46,78]. Haldi and Robinson [46] observed a slight variation in the window opening behavior in offices with one or two occupants. This was confirmed by similar observations by Herkel et al. [78] in two or three person offices while studying manual blinds control and by Moore et al. [74] in one to nine person offices while studying light switching. However, in this case the aforementioned arrival and departure time intervals require further explanation. For example, an occupant may walk into an already occupied office and open the window. Considering this action as an intermediate window opening behavior may mislead the model prediction process. Haldi and Robinson [46] suggested a simplifying assump￾tion that all occupants act independently and adaptive behavior is controlled by the most active (i.e. occupant who uses the adaptive control actions more frequently) occupant. Future studies may seek for a justification for this assumption. On the contrary, occupants tend to be more reluctant to use their blinds if others are present because of social constraints [24]. It was reported that such control actions in large offices were more frequently performed once most people had left because the action was judged to not impact anyone [82]. The indoor conditions are a temporospatial distribution of a physical variable. For example, the illuminance even in a small of- fice can vary significantly. In fact, Reinhart and Wienold [60] considered repositioning in the office as an independent adaptive measure. Subsequently, Jakubiec and Reinhart [83] introduced adaptive zone concept in which occupants change position and view directions, rather than readily accepting the discomfort from glare or closing the blinds. It was reported that in a side-lit office H.B. Gunay et al. / Building and Environment 70 (2013) 31e47 35