^9

A11100 ‘nsilb

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH R.I.C. NBS

PUBLICATIONS

A 1 1 1 0 5 AA71DL,

NBSIR 81-2335

j

Effects of Home Weatherization

on Occupant Comfort: First

Report of A Field Study

September 1981

NBSIR 81-2335

t 9 t EFFECTS OF HOME WEATHER IZATION

ON OCCUPANT COMFORT: FIRST

REPORT OF A FIELD STUDY

Roy E. Clark

September 1981

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

national bureau

or standards

library

SEP i 6 1981

not o.cc - Cj

Cll too

i u r b

C. 3-

ABSTRACT

This study reports preliminary examination of data testing the hypothesis

that, when existing residences are treated with weatherization retrofitting

measures intended primarily to save fuel, house occupants are likely to

report improvement in wintertime comfort. Data were gathered through

questionnaire-guided interviews with individuals in 108 experimental houses

and 37 control houses. These houses, at nine sites representing a range of

U.S. climates, were part of a three-year National Weatherization Demonstration, sponsored by the Community Services Administration and planned and

managed by researchers at the Center for Building Technology of the National

Bureau of Standards. The experimental houses had been weatherized to determine how much their fuel usage could be reduced by cost-effective retrofitting. The control houses had not been weatherized in the demonstration.

Interview topics included: thermostat setting patterns, impressions of com- parative comfort, amounts of clothing worn, and specific comfort and temperature ratings for the house as a whole and for individual rooms in the house.

Preliminary examination of the data has focussed on: 1) a composite "comfort change" index, comprised of: indicators derived from thermostat setting

practices in unusually cold weather, impressions of change in comfort-related

attributes of the indoor environment, amounts of clothing worn in winter, and

comfort ratings of the house and of individual rooms, 2) the specific comfort

ratings, and 3) the specific temperature ratings. The results present strong

indications of support for the hypothesis.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The original version of this paper was presented as a Masters Degree thesis

to Antioch University, Maryland. The author wishes to acknowledge the

helpful suggestions of his thesis committee, Jackson Kytle and Stephen Rose.

Special thanks to Arthur Rubin of the Sensory Environment Group, Center for

Building Technology, National Bureau of Standards for his constructive review

of the work at the "Final Proposal" stage, and to Stephen T. Margulis, Architectural Research Group, Center for Building Technology, for his critique of

the questionnaire, help in selecting analysis strategies, and review of the

manuscript. Stefan Leigh of the Statistical Engineering Division, NBS,

assisted the author in appropriately analyzing the comfort and temperature

ratings. The paper was typed by Ms. Ulesia Gray and Ms. Mary Ramsburg

,

and their efforts are much appreciated. Finally, mention must be made of

the "space" made available to me to work on this project by Richard Crenshaw,

Architectural Research Group , and Project Manager of the Community Services

Administration (CSA) Optimal Weatherization Demonstration, and of the CSA

support of the entire weatherization demonstration.

iv
SI CONVERSION UNITS

In view of the present accepted practice for building technology in this country,

common U.S. units of measurement were used throughout the report. In recognition of the position of the United States as a signatory to the General Conference on Weights and Measures, which gave official status to the International

System of Units (SI) in 1960, the table below is presented to facilitate conversion to SI units. Readers interested in making further use of the coherent

system of SI units are referred to: NBS SP 330, 1977 Edition, The International

System of Units; and ASTM E621-78, Standard Practice for the Use of Metric (SI)

Units in Building Design and Construction.

Table of Conversion Factors to SI Units

To Convert From To Multiply By

Btu J (joule) 1 .056 x 103

F degree K (kelvin) 0.556

R-value (Btu/( f t^ »hr» °F) ) 1 (W/m2»k) 1 1 .761 x 10"1

O F

O c 0.556, after subtracting 32

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT «... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

SI CONVERSIONS v LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

1. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

2 . OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ............ ... 4

2.1 Goal of the Research 4

2.2 Theory Context 4

2.3 Methods 5

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 6

3.1 General Thermal Comfort/Discomfort 6

3.2 Effect of Mean Radiant Temperature 9

3.3 Behavioral Thermoregulation and Thermal Adaptation 12

3.4 Scales 13

3.5 Field Studies of Thermal Comfort 14

3.6 Effects of Recall and Memory Factors in Obtaining

Survey Data 16

4. THE PRESENT STUDY 20

4.1 Respondents 20

4.2 Experimental Design 21

4.3 Instrument 23

4.4 Procedure 24

4.5 Discussion and Preliminary Results 27

4.5.1 Composite Comfort Change Index 29

4.5.2 Comfort Ratings 33

4.5.3 Temperature Ratings 35

4 . 6 Conclusion 38

5. REFERENCES ............ 41

APPENDIX A: Cover Letter and Instructions Sent to A-l

Interviewers

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire B-l

APPENDIX C: Sample of Output of Program QUSTEDIT C-l

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Regression Coefficients of Scale Unit to K Obtained

from Various Types of Comfort Studies 16

2. Distribution of Respondent Ages 20

3. Severity of Winter Weather and Options Installed, by Site 28

4. Frequency Distribution of "Thermostat" Indicator 29

5. Frequency Distribution of "Noticed Difference" Indicator 30

6. Frequency Distribution of "Clothing Change" Indicator 30

7. Frequency Distribution of "Overall Comfort Rating"

Indicator . 31

8. Frequency Distribution of "Average Comfort Rating"

Indicator 31

4. 9. Frequency Distributions of "Composite Comfort Change"

Index Scores 32

10. Means of Overall House Comfort Ratings 33

11. Means of House Average Comfort Ratings 34

12. Means of House Average Temperture Ratings 37

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Temperatures Across an Uninsulated Wall in Cold Weather 11

2. Temperatures Across an Insulated Wall in Cold Weather 12

3. Box Plots of Distributions of "House Average" Comfort Ratings .... 35

4. Youden Plot of Control "House Average" Comfort Ratings 36

5. Youden Plot of Experimental "House Average" Comfort Ratings 37

6. Box Plots of Distributions of "House Average” Temperature

Ratings 38

7. Youden Plot of Control "House Average" Temperature Ratings 39

8. Youden Plot of Experimental "House Average" Temperature Ratings .. 40

viii
1 . BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The United States has entered a time of energy transition and potential crisis.

Modern industrial societies have been designed and adapted to depend for

their energy needs largely on fossil fuels. While the consequent demand for

and consumption of such fuels has grown apace in recent decades, it is now increasingly recognized that these sources of energy are "capital goods,"

and the earth has only a finite endowment. This situation mandates efforts

to: 1) reduce the rates of consumption of depleting fuels, and 2) shift to

the use of renewable forms of energy supplies. The time pressures attending

this necessary transition are compounded for the United States by our current

heavy dependence on petroleum supplies from foreign nations. Thus, while

pursuing the development of economical technologies to utilize non-depleting

forms of energy, the United States must also reduce its present rate of

energy consumption.

In even a temperate climate such as that of the United States, a significant

fraction of the energy used goes to maintaining healthful and satisfying

indoor environment conditions, in particular maintaining desired indoor air

temperatures in winter. Roughly 16 percent of our energy consumption occurs

in our houses (Clark & Hastings, 1979, p.4). By far the largest segment of

the 16 percent is used to maintain the comfort conditions of the air in

dwellings—principally temperature and relative humidity. This largest

segment of residential energy consumption can be further broken down into

1) space heating (its largest component), 2) air conditioning (still only

about three percent of the residential total), and 3) ventilation (an

insignificant fraction in residences, covering power attic ventilators and

fans and air conditioners used for ventilating purposes).

Thus, space heating of homes consumes, by recent estimates, 11 percent of

total U.S. energy (70 percent of overall residential consumption) (Clark and

Hastings, 1979). Within the residential one-sixth of our total energy usage,

space heating seems clearly the highest priority area for efforts to reduce

present energy consumption levels.

The amount of energy used to maintain wintertime indoor temperatures is a function, principally, of the amount of heat lost through the building shell.

(It is also affected by the efficiency of the space heating equipment). The

rate of heat loss is principally a function of 1) the shell area, 2) the

(average) thermal resistance of the shell, and 3) the temperature difference

across the shell (AT=T-L n(j oor - Tout(j oor ). When designing new buildings, one

can give attention to minimizing the shell area for a building of given

enclosed space. However, for most existing residences—which include the

houses in which most people will be living next year and five- even twentyyears hence, the only feasible ways to reduce energy usage are increasing

the thermal resistance of the building shell and reducing the aT across the

shell. (This presupposes the continued use of conventional, fuel-consuming

space heating equipment.)

1
Both approaches have been addressed in the last few years in this country.

Twice since 1973, Americans have been urged, in the interest of reducing the

Nation's demand for imported oil, to lower their wintertime thermostat

settings: to 68°F in 1973, and then to 65°F in 1979 (Smith, 1979, p. 431).

Also, many programs and incentives have been established to help and encourage residents to improve the heat conserving properties of their dwellings.

This study is concerned with the implications for occupant comfort of reducing

space heating energy consumption in residences.

The single most important environmental parameter affecting human comfort

(as discussed below) is air temperature. To significantly lower wintertime

thermostat settings is to directly and deleteriously affect this human comfort parameter. Moreover, there is a 50-year documented trend of gradually

rising preferred indoor temperatures in the U.S. (Nevins, McNall, & Stolwijk,

1974, p. 42). This trend may or may not be necessary or desirable; nevertheless, it needs to be considered before invoking "instant" energy conservation

measures contrary to it. There are ways for occupants to compensate for a lower ambient air temperature and maintain thermal comfort, namely: to

wear more or heavier clothes and/or to be more physically active. However,

both of these compensations are behavioral choices that may or may not be

acceptable to—or practical for—occupants , in which cases people are likely

to set their heating thermostat at 70° or 72 °F (or even higher, for reasons discussed below), rather than being uncomfortable during cold weather.

The other approach to reducing space heating energy consumption, which is

increasing the thermal resistance of the building, is accomplished through

weatherization retrofitting of the building. This may involve installing new or additional insulation in attics and walls, adding storm windows,

caulking and weatherstripping around windows and doors to minimize infiltration of cold air/exf iltration of heated air, or improving the efficiency of

the heating system. This work can require a financial outlay up to several

thousand dollars for a typical house in the more northerly areas of the

United States; however, based on typical present-day fuel costs, such expenditures for weatherization can be expected to be recouped in saved fuel

costs within a few years. Moreover, there are reasons to expect that this

approach to reducing energy consumption will also maintain and probably

improve the level of wintertime thermal comfort felt by occupants in their

house without any behavioral modifications on their part . In fact, in some cases weatherization retrofitting Is likely to have the effect of inducing

residents to voluntarily lower thermostat settings in order to maintain

thermal comfort (i.e., avoid overheating) —for reasons that are discussed

below. This consequence would bring about even greater fuel savings than

those directly attributable to the increased heat flow resistance of the

building shell.

The Community Services Administration sponsored (under an Interagency Agreement signed in March, 1978), and the National Bureau of Standards carried

out, from mid-1977 to late 1980, a national "optimal weatherization demonstration." The principal goal of the demonstration was to find out how much

reduction in fuel consumption could be achieved by installing cost-effective

2
weatherization in various types of houses in different climate zones of the

United States (Crenshaw, Clark, Grot & Chapman, 1978). The approach was to:

1) establish the pre-weatherization rates of fuel usage of the experimental

houses; 2) carry out all weatherization work which a cost/benefit analysis

had shown to be economically effective in the climates and with the fuel

costs of the different sites; 3) measure the post-weatherization fuel consumption of the houses; and 4) compare the measured and projected savings in

fuel costs with the measured costs of the weatherization work. Data collected

in the project, in addition to fuel consumption and air infiltration measurements, included weekly representative temperature readings on each occupied

floor of project houses, and monthly detailed measurements of the temperature

variations within the dwellings. In addition, data were obtained on certain

occupant activities and attitudes affecting energy consumption in the houses.

The present paper reports the first phase of study of the comfort-related

data from the CSA Weatherization Demonstration—namely, development of an appropriate questionnaire and a plan to administer it, and analysis of the

questionnaire data. The author hopes eventually to be able to compare the

occupants’ reports about the wintertime comfort in their houses before and

after weatherization with the temperature measurements recorded over the same

time period. The goal of the analysis is to determine whether changes in

comfort are related to changes in the measured temperature variation in the

houses brought about by weatherization. The first step in this analysis,

described and reported in this paper, is to see if reported comfort is

related to whether a house was weatherized or not.

3
2 . OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

2 .1 GOAL OF THE RESEARCH

The overall objective of this study was to measure the comfort impressions of

residents of houses before and after the houses were weatherized, and to

compare the measures. A second objective was to compare the comfort impression measures with the temperature stratification measurements of the houses.

2 .2 THEORY CONTEXT

The feelings or impressions of thermal comfort experienced by an occupant of an indoor space, while essentially subjective in nature, are clearly

influenced by certain physical parameters of the indoor environment. First

among these is obviously the temperature of the air. Air at temperatures

within some range will be felt by a person to be "comfortable", while outside

of that range it is felt to be "uncomfortable" —"too cold", or "too warm."

However, even considering just the relation of dry-bulb air temperature to

occupant comfort, the matter is more complex. It cannot be assumed that the

temperature of all of the air in a space is uniform; that is, the temperatures

may 1) feel uniformly comfortable, 2) feel uniformly uncomfortable, or

3) be so varying from place to place in the space as to feel more or less

uncomfortable

.

People's feelings of thermal comfort are affected by another environmental

parameter: the radiant temperatures of the solid surfaces surrounding them

(i.e., walls, windows, ceiling, floor). Since the temperatures of these

various surfaces likely differ at any given time, their effect is generally

dealt with in terms of the "mean [average] radiant temperature" (MRT) of the

surrounding surfaces. To the extent that this temperature is lower than the

dry-bulb air temperature in the space, the MRT has a relatively larger

effect on an occupant's feelings of "comfort" than does the air temperature.

A third environmental parameter that influences comfort impressions is

relative air movement. Particularly if the dry-bulb air temperature is on

the low side of the "comfortable" range, movement of the air past the body

at greater than some fairly low rate will exacerbate the effects of the low

air temperature, and increase a person's "uncomfortableness." In an indoor

space, such as a dwelling, such excessive air movement may result from

wind-induced leakage around loose-fitting windows or doors, convection

currents of cold air flowing down from windows, or even walls, or air flows

generated by the heating system.

The fourth environmental parameter that can affect people's comfort feelings

is relative humidity (or water vapor pressure) in the ambient air. Ordinarily

this factor only comes into play in warm situations, when the relative

humidity is high enough to interfere with the evaporation of sweat.

All of these comfort-influencing environmental parameters can be directly

affected by one or more of the building retrofits or treatments that are applied under the subject of "building weather ization . " Weatherization has

4
generally been carried out in the interest of reducing the heating energy

consumption of the building—or of saving energy. However, the CSA

weatherization demonstration offered an opportunity to obtain data with

which to try to determine whether weatherization of a house might also

result in improved occupant comfort in winter.

2 .3 METHODS

The CSA Weatherization Demonstration was a three year (1977-1980) study,

conducted in or near 12 U . S. cities, and intended primarily to ascertain

how much reduction in fuel consumption could be obtained by "optimal"

weatherization of houses occupied by low-income people (Crenshaw et al .

,

1978). It also sought to learn something of the effectiveness of broad

categories of retrofitting: "conduction" (i.e., increasing the thermal

resistance of the building shell by adding insulation, storm windows),

"infiltration" (i.e., reducing inf iltration/ exfiltration by means of caulking, weatherstripping), and "mechanical systems" (i.e., improving the efficiency of the heat producing and distributing systems in houses). In all, some 240 houses at the 12 sites were studied in the demonstration. The

"before weatherization" rate of fuel consumption of the houses was established

by analyzing two years of archival fuel delivery records (utility billing

records for gas or electricity, delivery records for oil, bottled gas or kerosene). A cost-effective set of weatherization retrofits was determined

for each house, using "cost/benefit" economic analysis. The weatherization

work was either done by local Community Action Agency (CAA) weatherization

crews in the site areas, or contracted out by the agencies. The site agencies progressed at varying rates, so that weatherization work began as early as fall, 1978, in some cities, and was completed as late as January

1980, in others.

To permit "compressing" the post-weatherization data collection period,

meters were installed in the houses, for recording and reporting of: furnace fuel consumption, furnace run-time, furnace on-off cycles, water heater

fuel consumption, and hot water consumption. Local CAA personnel read these

meters, as well as the total house electric and gas (utility) meters, and

thermometers installed near the center of each floor of the houses, weekly,

and forwarded the data to the research staff at the National Bureau of

Standards for review and analysis.

Field personnel measured and recorded other data monthly over the period of

the demonstration study: The infiltration rate of each house was measured,

using a tracer gas-decay method. Of particular relevance to hoped-for future

extension of the present study, an interior temperature profile of each

house, called a "temperature stratification test," was recorded monthly.

Each test comprised a number of sets of temperature readings, obtained in

different areas of the house with a quick-responding, electronic digital

thermometer. Thus, a number of rather detailed descriptions of temperature

variation within each house was recorded once a month over two heating seasons. Finally, to obtain data for the present comfort study, the field

personnel conducted a questionnaire-guided interview of a responsible

member of each household.

5
3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 GENERAL THERMAL COMFORT/DISCOMFORT

The implications of indoor temperatures for occupants have been recognized

for over a century. In a History and Art of Warming and Ventilating Buildings , published in 1845, W. Bernon addressed the issue:

"Leaving Foulkner and his disciples [climatologists of that time] in

possession of their dogma, that governments may stamp the manners but

it is the air they breath which molds the form, temper, and genius of

the people, we may go with it so far with the ingenious enthusiast as

to admit that warmth exerts a considerable influence on our physical,

if not also our mental condition. The formation and regulation of

artificial climate will then assume the character of an art for

developing and expanding the mind and the body, for preserving health

and for prolonging life" (quoted in Nevins, McNall & Stolwijk (1974)).

Bernon concludes with the prescient statement, "The skillful practice of the

art [of formation and regulation of artificial climate] as a means of saving

fuel will become essential, not to the well being, only, but to the existence

of many comunities." (Emphasis added.)

Human thermal comfort, as a field and as a topic for extensive experimental

efforts, can be traced to the work of Houghton and Yaglou in the United

States. Beginning in 1923, these investigators mapped out the combinations

of ambient dry bulb temperature and relative humidity which resulted in

reports of "feelings of equal warmth" by subjects. To briefly review the

physical, physiological, and psychological bases of human thermal comfort:

The human body is a heat engine, key components of which (e.g., the brain,

other internal organs) can survive and function properly only within fairly narrow temperature limits. The body's manner of maintaining correct internal

temperature is to generate a surplus of heat, appropriately regulating the

dissipation of excess heat to its surroundings.

A sitting, resting adult breathes in 15 to 20 cubic feet of air per hour.

Metabolic processes utilizing the oxygen in the air produce about 400 Btu

(422 kilojoules) of heat that must be dissipated. A thermally comfortable

adult wearing ordinary clothes, sitting in a room in which the air is practically still, with a dry bulb temperature of 60°F (15.6°C) and relative

humidity of 50 percent, loses the 400 Btu as follows: about 46 percent by

radiation to the solid surroundings, about 30 percent by convection, and 24

percent by evaporation from the lungs and skin (Angus, 1968). The maximum

mechanical efficiency of the human body is roughly 20 percent —so that when

substantial amounts of metabolic energy are being converted into physical or mental work, four-fifths of the total energy produced is still excess heat

that must be dissipated.

The physiological mechanisms for controlling the rate of heat loss to the

environment are sweating and vasoconstriction. When insufficient heat is

6
being dissipated, sweating commences, to increase the rate of heat loss,

primarily through the heat of vaporization necessary for evaporating the

sweat from the skin. When heat is being lost at too rapid a rate, the veins near the body surface constrict, reducing the amount of blood flowing through

them, and consequently the rate of transfer of heat from the interior of the

body to the skin. Using these regulating mechanisms, the human "thermoregulatory system is quite effective and the heat balance [of generation in vs. loss from the body] can therefore be maintained within wide limits of

the environmental variables, corresponding to wide limits of the physiological

parameters [skin temperature and sweat secretion]" (Fanger, 1970, pp . 37-38).

Physiologically, "thermal comfort" is that condition in which the body does

not have to exercise either regulatory mechanism in order to maintain the

heat balance. Thus, Fanger continues: "This [satisfying of the body's heat

balance over wide ranges of environmental variables] is... far from being a sufficient condition for thermal comfort ... there is only a narrow interval

[of the environmental variables] which will create thermal comfort" (Fanger,

1970, p. 38).

One line of the work started by Houghton and Yaglou, to characterize the

environmental and other variables affecting human thermal comfort and to

ascertain the limits within which comfort can be found, culminated in the

classic work of Fanger (1970), cited above. Fanger worked out in considerable detail an equation expressing the body's heat balance, and used it to

generate curves and tables with which levels of human thermal sensation can

be accurately predicted from environmental and personal variables. Such

predictions can be made in two different forms: 1) those combinations of

the variables which will produce "optimal thermal comfort," and 2) the "predicted mean vote" (on a seven-point scale, with thermal neutrality as center

point—discussed below) of a group of people experiencing the specified set

of conditions.

Fanger identified six variables as materially affecting feelings of thermal

comfort. They can be divided into two groups: Two are personal factors:

1) activity level (heat production in the body), and 2) thermal resistance

of the clothing worn (expressed in a derived unit called "clo"). The other

four factors are environmental: 3) air (dry bulb) temperature, 4) mean

radiant temperature of surrounding solid surfaces, 5) relative air velocity,

and 6) water vapor pressure in the ambient air. The four environmental

factors are the physical parameters which can affect the rates of heat transfer

from a body by radiation, convection, and evaporation.

Other authors have listed additional factors affecting the range of environmental conditions that will be found acceptable, for example: "personal:

age, sex, body composition, body build, diurnal variation, metabolic rate,

state of acclimation; behavioral: meal pattern, clothing worn, thermal antecedents, physical activity antecedents, mental concentration; environmental:

distractions (noise, vibrations, odors), lighting, decor. Synergistic as well as inhibitory interactions are not only possible but probable." (Buskirk

& Loomis, nd , p. 2). Nevertheless, Fanger 's six factors are the only ones

that have been systematically studied, and they have been shown in many

studies with "standardized" conditions to quite adequately explain human

7
thermal sensations. The other variables affect the minimum predicted

percentage of dissatisfied (PPD), calculated by Fanger as five percent at the

optimal combinations of his six variables.

So far in this paper, "thermal comfort" has been equated with "thermal

neutrality," in the sense of absence of physiological regulatory effort. The

psychological counterpart to this concept would imply the absence of sensations of either warmth or coolness, or, "... that [a person] does not know

whether he would prefer a higher or lower ambient temperature," (Olesen,

Mortensen, Thorshauge, & Berg-Munch, 1980, 1st page). This shift from defining thermal comfort physiologically in terms of the net physical heat balance

of the body to defining it psychologically in terms of expressed mental attitude is explicitly recognized in recent thermal comfort work. Furthermore,

”... physiologists have recognized that sensations of comfort and of temperature may have different physiological and physical bases, and each type should

be considered separately. In the ASHRAE Comfort Standard 55-66 thermal comfort is defined 'as that state of mind which expresses satisfaction with the

thermal environment.'" (ASHRAE, 1978, p. 138, emphasis added.) The discussion

continues: "Unfortunately, very little practical research has been reported

to date that specifically answers this ASHRAE definition ... the majority of our current predictive charts are based on comfort defined as a sensation

'that is neither slightly warm or slightly cool'" (ASHRAE, 1978, p. 138). In

consonance with this newer understanding, the present study asked respondents

to report both their temperature sensation and their impressions of comfort.

Relative humidity is more likely to affect comfort impressions in hot than in

relatively cool environments, so is unlikely to be a factor in wintertime

comfort. It is true that installing a vapor barrier in a house in conjunction

with insulating the house could result in a noticeably higher indoor relative

humidity. (Relative humidity was reported as part of the weekly data in the

present study, so the records can be examined for any occurrences of excessive

humidity .)

As summarized by McIntyre (1978a, pp . 4, 7): "By comfort we mean a state of

satisfaction, i.e., a person is comfortable if he says he is comfortable.

[Furthermore] thermal comfort is not an exact concept, nor does it occur at an exact temperature. A person may be comfortable over a range of temperatures and if the temperature is changed so that it moves outside this range,

the onset of discomfort is not sudden... A person's reaction to a temperature

which is less than perfect will depend very much on his expectations, personality, and what else he is doing at the time." A loose relationship is still

assumed between thermal sensation and comfort feelings: "The generally

accepted convention is to treat thermal discomfort in terms of the scale of

warmth sensation, and the comfort range taken to be the three central categories

of the seven-point scales" (usually: "slightly warm," "neutral," "slightly

cool") (McIntyre, 1978a, p. 7). However, two recently reported experiments,

one conducted at Capenhurst, England, in winter and the other at New Haven

in summer, found that subjects stating that they were "comfortable" (the

neutral point on the widely-used scales) nevertheless "would like to be

warmer" in the winter experiment and "would like to be cooler" in the summer

8
one (McIntyre, 1978b, 5th page). McIntyre reasonably observes: "The explanation probably lies in the connotations of the words 'warm' and 'cool.' In a cold climate people want to be 'warm;' they do not dream of a room somewhere

which is thermally neutral. Conversely, in a hot climate..." (McIntyre,

1978b, 5th page).

To summarize: 1) "Thermal comfort" is a function of the physical heat balance

state of the "heat engine" human body. 2) It was long defined and studied as

a special condition of thermal neutrality—maintenance of the heat balance

without the noticeable intervention of the physiological thermoregulatory

system. 3) As such, it is governed by four environmental parameters: air

temperature, (mean) radiant temperature, relative air movement, and water

vapor pressure or relative humidity. 4) It is now considered in a somewhat

altered light as an aspect of (mental) satisfaction, linked in some way with

the sensation of temperature or heat/cold.

3.2 EFFECT OF MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE

In the words of Nevins & McNall (1972, p. 33): "... dry bulb temperature is

usually the major factor in determining the thermal exchange of the human

body, ... in most environmental control systems, the dry bulb temperature is

the controlled variable, and it is the most commonly used single variable

employed to estimate or classify the thermal environment." However, heat

does "flow” by radiation from surfaces with higher radiant temperatures to

surfaces with lower radiant temperatures. Since the human body is dissipating as much as one-third or more of its excess heat by radiation to the

solid surroundings, even under typically "comfortable" conditions, the

average or mean radiant temperature (MRT) of those surrounding surfaces is

likely to have significant effects on the body's heat balance.

A common assumption is that the temperature of the surfaces in a room is

the same as the temperature of the air with which they are in contact, and

most thermal comfort studies in environmental chambers have been carried out

with such a relationship. However, in the "real world," such a relationship

often does not prevail in houses (or office buildings) during cold weather.

As Nevins and McNall (1972, p. 33) state: "Thermal radiation exchange or the

mean radiant temperature is determined by the inside surface temperatures of

the space, which in turn are dictated normally by the outdoor conditions,

the construction of the building, window areas, solar load, etc." To the

extent that the indoor surface temperatures do differ from indoor air

temperatures in cold weather, they are almost always lower.

Consider a cross section of an exterior building component—a wall, or a pane

of glass—in winter. There exists a thermal gradient across any such component; on the inside is air at some value close to the indoor air temperature.

On the outside is air at the prevailing outdoor temperature—anywhere from

20 to 50 (or more) F degrees lower. At various points across the building

shell component, temperatures between the two described extremes occur. The

difference between any two adjacent temperatures as one traverses the building component is a function of the thermal resistance between the two points.

It is important to understand what happens at the surface where air meets

9
solid material. Stagnant air exhibits a relatively high resistance to heat

flow. On the indoor side of the component, there is likely to be slight air

movement, consequently a fairly thick layer of stagnant air, and a relatively

high thermal resistance "between" the room air and the surface. Thus, the

surface may be significantly colder than the indoor air (Smith, 1979, p. 473).

On the outdoor side, air currents may well be stronger, the stagnant layer

thinner, and consequent thermal resistance smaller—and the temperature of

the outside surface almost the same as the outside air temperature. Single

pane glass has very low resistance to heat flow (R 1.0) —thus the inside

surfaces of single-glazed windows are, in cold weather, areas of quite low

radiant temperature, lowering the MRT of the inner surfaces of a room.

What is the consequence of the MRT being significantly lower than the air

temperature in a space? Since the human body in this situation will lose more heat by radiation to the surrounding surfaces, to maintain its heat

balance it must lose less by convection (and evaporation). In other words,

to maintain thermal comfort, a depressed MRT must be compensated by a raised

air temperature. Fanger's calculations, confirmed by studies reported by

Nevins and McNall (1972 , p. 34), show that, for persons wearing light to

medium clothing, dry bulb air temperature may have to be raised as much as 1°F for a 1°F drop in MRT to maintain thermal comfort. Any step which adds

to the thermal resistance of the building shell, such as adding insulation

to a wall, adding storm windows or triple glazing to a window, will increase

the total resistance vis-a-vis that of the inside stagnant air layer, and

as a consequence raise the temperature of the inner surface of the shell

component for a given prevailing outside temperature and wind condition.

Consider two examples:

1) A typical uninsulated wood frame wall in a house at the Allentown,

Pennsylvania, demonstration site has an R-value of 4.3 (see figure 1,

next page). If an occupant tries to maintain an indoor air temperature for comfort of 70°F and the outdoor temperature is 30 °F, the

inner surface of an exterior wall would be at about 64 °F. The amount

of radiation loss of a body is dependent on the particular surfaces

to which it is "exposed." Thus, for a standing or even a seated

person, the bulk of the radiation loss is to the walls, and the

temperatures of the walls have the largest effect on the mean radiant

temperature experienced by an occupant of the room. Consequently, a single wall surface at 64 °F could have the effect of lowering the

mean radiant temperature of a room by 1 to 1.5 F degrees (assuming

one wall is, effectively, approximately one fifth of the surface to

which the body is exposed the effect could be even more, depending

on how close the person is to the wall). For a corner room with two

exterior walls, the MRT could be lowered to 67.5 or 68 °F. The air

temperature in these two rooms would have to be raised as much as 1.5 and 2.5 F degrees, respectively, to maintain comfort for a sedentary, lightly to moderately clothed individual.

2) Solid masonry (two layers of 4 inch brick) walls, common in the

demonstration houses in St. Louis and Allentown, have a typical

10
Figure 1. Temperatures across an uninsulated wall in cold weather

RVALUE % TOTAL

1 STLL MR 161 17 2 KASTER 132 "

3 STUDS 1.13 4 SMEATHMG 178 > M

S warn 163

• STU MR 117 _3

VITAL 164 N0%

R-value of 3.3. With this type of wall, and the indoor and outdoor

conditions described in the first example, the MRT experienced in

the above two rooms (i.e., non-corner, or corner) could typically be

68.5 and 67°F, respectively. These conditions would require

increases of air temperature of as much as 1.5 and 3 F degrees,

respectively, to maintain thermal comfort for typical occupants.

Note that, with the same prevailing air temperature conditions, the inner

surface temperature of a single-glazed window would be about 56°F! Thus,

large, single-glazed window areas can cause significant lowering of the MRT

in a room.

Occupants of houses with uninsulated walls and substantial areas of

single-glazed windows are quite likely to seek needed increases in interior

air temperature in cold weather by raising the furnace thermostat setting,

thereby raising the AT across the building thermal envelope, increasing

the envelope heat loss, and increasing furnace fuel consumption.

If insulation equivalent to R-13 is added to the exterior walls in either of

these two examples (one inch of rigid foam board applied to the inside or outside of masonry walls, or five inches of cellulose blown into frame walls),

the deficiency of MRT below air temperature would be reduced to less than

0.9 F degrees in the most extreme case (see figure 2, next page). As a con- sequence, the uniformity of thermal comfort conditions in the rooms would

be improved, and the need for raising the air temperature would be significantly reduced.

11
Figure 2 Temperatures across an insulated wall in cold weather

i i 4 5 S

•-VALUE % TOTAL

1 smis®

2 msm

3 suws & msauam

4 mATWM

§ zsm

§ stuab

TOTAL

Berglund (1977, pp . 117-118), reviewing the state-of-the-art of measuring the

four environmental properties affecting thermal comfort, states: "... mea- surement of thermal radiation in the built environment is still elusive to

the HVAC [heating, ventilating and air conditioning] engineer and has been

often overlooked or neglected because accurate measurement is difficult and

time consuming." In the present field study, although the MRT in the houses

has not been measured, some inferences about the effects of MRT are made,

based on 1) the known thermal resistance characteristics of the building

walls and windows, and 2) the measured (air) temperature variation throughout

the houses.

3.3 BEHAVIORAL THERMOREGULATION AND THERMAL ADAPTATION

I have briefly described the physiological mechanisms of thermoregulation and

quoted Fanger's observation that the body's modification of vasoconstriction

and sweat rate can maintain a proper internal temperature over a rather wide

range of the pertinent environmental parameters. However, we know that people

survive and function in an even wider range of environments. The means by

which we succeed in doing this is behavioral temperature regulation motivated

by thermal discomfort (Hardy, 1971, p. 50). This motivation is a reason that

people build buildings, move to the sheltered side of a building on a windy

winter day, drill for oil, put on or take off a sweater or long stockings,

open or close windows or shades, and turn up or down a thermostat. The

objective is not only to ensure maintenance of correct internal body temperature, but also, to minimize physiological regulatory stress—ergo discomfort,

by affecting the environment at the body surface.

12
The important point for the present study: this, most powerful, loop for

regulation of body temperature will affect—interfere with, to a degree

"measurements" made by people (comfort ratings) of a built environment.

People can adjust to lower indoor temperatures by wearing more clothes, or

even by being more active and energetic.

3.4 SCALES

Since the present study required recording occupants’ reports of their

impressions of comfort—and temperature—in their houses in winter,

appropriate scales for recording such impressions had to be identified.

In recognition of the distinction between temperature sensation and comfort

sensation, ASHRAE studies and other researches make use of two scales for

subjects to rate their environments. The rating scales commonly used in comfort studies in this country are: the "ASHRAE" seven-point scale of warmth,

or temperature, sensation (McIntyre, 1976, p. 4) and the four-point scale of

comfort-discomfort sensation developed and used at the John B. Pierce

Foundation. McIntyre has carried out an extensive evaluation of seven-point

scales of warmth (McIntyre, 1976). The author observes: "It is clearly a category scale. The categories can be unambiguously ordered, and are usually

presented ordered and numbered. It is therefore an ordinal scale. This is

enough to perform non-parametric statistics. However, ... a goal of comfort

work is to be able to predict the comfort of people, and to do this it is

necessary to be able to work in terms of the parameters of the distribution

of votes" (McIntyre, 1976, p. 10). Using the data from a number of comfort

experiments that have employed the seven-point scales, McIntyre finds that

"there is nothing to suggest that the category widths vary systematically,

and no reason to suppose that we are not dealing with an equal interval scale

[with the obvious exceptions of the end categories]."

To get a measure of the within-subjects reliability of the seven-point warmth

scale, McIntyre analyzed data from several experiments in which the subjects

were exposed to identical environmental conditions over a six hour exposure

or at intervals of from one to three weeks. From the results of these studies,

McIntyre obtained average standard deviations of 1.0 scale units for betweensessions vote variation and 0.8 for within-session. In one experiment several

scales were used, mostly seven-point semantic differential-type scales. "In

general, scales of warmth had a mean difference [between subjects] of about

one interval, while evaluative scales (e.g., comfort) had a mean difference

of about two intervals."

To study the variation of votes across temperatures, McIntyre performed

regression analyses of data from several experiments in environmental chambers,

including 1296 observations recorded at Kansas State University and at Fanger’s

laboratory in Denmark. For mean temperatures ranging from 22.6°C (72.7°F)

to 25.6°C (78.1°F) the between-subjects standard deviations ranged from 0.8

K (1.44 F degrees) to 1.5 K (2.7 F degrees). He was able to calculate withinsubjects standard deviations for two of the studies. These were 0.6 K (1.1 F

degrees) and 1.2 K (2.2 F degrees), respectively. Elsewhere McIntyre (1978b,

5th, 6th pages) has presented figures for the variation of warmth votes

13
(seven-point scale) with temperature as "a consistent value of 0.33 scale

units per degree K" for environmental chamber studies, and 0.23 su/K for

field studies. He suggests the "variation (noise) in the scales must reflect

some spontaneous variation in sensation." Furthermore, Rohles (1980, 6th page)

found, by plotting data from an earlier study of 1600 subjects in terms of

mean vote against standard deviation of the vote, that "the variability of

the responses is highest around the temperatures judged to be comfortable...."

In the present study I faced a measurement problem. One must conclude about

the scales and the (physiological) instrument used for measurement of comfort

ratings in this study: 1) The seven-point warmth scale is a reasonably

uniform category scale (with the exception of the end categories). However,

2) even in "standard" condition environmental chamber studies, the warmth

scale is somewhat unstable for between-sessions comparison. 3) Virtually

no data exist as to the stability and uniformity of the five-point comfort

scale used. (The results presented in section 4.5 offer indirect evidence

that this problem was not as serious as feared.)

3.5 FIELD STUDIES OF THERMAL COMFORT

More than 30 field studies of thermal comfort have been carried out in various

parts of the world in the last 40 years. These are reviewed and compared by

Humphreys (1975). Many of these studies, "have two purposes: to find a way

of describing the thermal environment which correlates well with human

response, ... and to define the range of conditions found to be pleasant or tolerable by the population concerned." In the field studies, the respondents

continue their usual normal activities in their usual surroundings, but are asked to report or record their subjective impressions from time to time.

"Usually in field studies no attempt is made to control the environmental

conditions... In this way the studies gain in realism but lose some of the

advantages of planned experimental designs. It would generally be true to

say that they are not so much experiments as surveys accompanied by measurements" (Humphreys, 1975, 2nd page).

As to the measurements, "There is a wide variation among the studies in the

completeness with which the thermal environment has been measured." In view

of the relative simplicity of its measurement, air temperature is often the

only parameter recorded, "but... there has usually been no attempt to shield

the thermometer from radiation, so its readings would [be] affected to some extent by the mean radiant temperature of the surrounding surfaces"

(Humphreys, 1975, 3rd page).

Although relative humidity can have an effect on comfort in certain

situations, it has been shown to have no noticeable effect at levels and in

combination with temperatures ordinarily found in houses—i.e., as long as sweat can freely evaporate from the skin. Wet and dry bulb thermometer readings were recorded as part of the weekly data from the houses in the present

study, and can be checked for extreme values that might lead to discomfort.

Air velocity, particularly in houses heated by circulating air systems or relatively leaky unweatherized houses, may well be an unmeasured parameter in

the present study that does affect comfort perceptions. Humphreys suggests

14
that air temperature alone is a satisfactory descriptor of the environment as long as air velocity is "very slight (<^0.2 m/s [0.7 ft/s])." This rate could

be exceeded in local situations in houses.

The amount of clothing worn by respondents in field studies is usually not

controlled, but is often recorded. (In present study the questions about

clothing are addressed to possible changes in the amount of clothing typically

worn.)

In seeking comfort ratings from respondents, the questions may refer "to the

thermal state of the room, ... [or] to the thermal state of the respondent."

The distinction, although subtle, does occur in common speech: "Is it hot in

here, or is it just me?" (Humphreys, 1975, 5th page). (In the present study,

the respondents are asked to ascribe comfort and temperature ratings to the

spaces in the house.)

Comparing the findings of field studies to those from environmental chamber

experiments, Humphreys observes, "Because they are free to continue their

normal activity in their normal clothing and surroundings the respondents'

assessments are likely to be reliable descriptions of their feelings in daily

life, and not merely transient impressions of unfamiliar environments."

(Humphreys, 1975, 5th page).

The knotty problem involved in conducting a field study such as the present

one is clearly the reliability of the measurement judgments and the consequent

validity of the comparisons of comfort ratings. None of the field studies

reviewed by Humphreys appears to have involved the recording of comfort and

thermal impressions several months or even a year and a half after the time

in question, as does the present study.

Humphreys (1975, 11th page) presents a "category width" data, based on the

seven-point rating of warmth, from two wintertime studies. One involved

people engaged in "sedentary light industry" and the other involved school

students, ages 11 to 16 engaged in their school lessons. The mean "0"

(central) category width from the latter study was 2.9 K (5.2 F degrees) and

the widths of the "-1" and "+1" ("slightly cool" and "slightly warm", respectively) categories were 4.2 K (7.6 F degrees) and 3.1 K (5.6 F degrees),

respectively. Combining the mean category widths obtained from all studies

which used a seven category scale, Humphreys obtained overall mean widths

for the -1, 0, and +1 categories, respectively, of: 3.8 K (6.8 F degrees),

4.7 K (8.5 F degrees), and 3.7 K (6.7 F degrees). Of course, all of these

figures include "between subjects" variation. These data, however, do give

some crude indication of the sensitivity of the seven-point warmth scale to

differences in dry bulb temperature, around its midpoint.

Some lessons can be drawn from the few studies of longer duration. Several

involved obtaining impressions daily, weekly, or monthly over an entire year.

One study gathered daily responses over a year, and "obtained the lowest

regression coefficient [of rating to temperature], and the widest categories,

of all the studies of adult subjects which used seven-category scales. This

finding suggests that the response to the shorter term variations of

15
temperature which occur from day to day has been 'diluted' by a much smaller

response to seasonal variation" (Humphreys, 1975, 18th page). It is clear

from these studies that, "the ability of respondents to adjust to their

normal thermal environment has a profound effect upon their sensations of

warmth" (Humphreys, 1975, 18th page). When Humphreys compares the regression

coefficients obtained from the field studies with those typically obtained

in climate chamber experiments, where the subject has no opportunity to

adjust his clothing or level of activity to suit the environment, the values

for field studies are found to be much lower (see table 1). These data

suggest that, "even during intervals of hours rather than days, people's

adjustment to the variations of temperature has a significant effect on

their comfort".

Table 1

Regression Coefficients of Scale Unit to K Obtained from

Various Types of Comfort Studies

Sampling Regression coeff icient/K

Climate chamber, standard

clothing /activity 0.32

Field study—observations over some days or weeks, little seasonal drift of temperature 0.23

Field study—one observation per day, over whole year 0.16

Field study—one observation per week, over whole year; little daily variation of

temperature 0.10

Field study—monthly means of responses

over 15 months 0.05

(Humphreys, 1975, 18th page).

3.6 EFFECTS OF RECALL AND MEMORY FACTORS IN OBTAINING SURVEY DATA

The comfort- and temperature- impression data for the present study were

obtained by means of retrospective questions incorporated in an interview

questionnaire. Thus, they are subject to temporal and other effects on memory and recall. During the development of this study, question was raised

about the possibility of obtaining valid, useable data about wintertime

comfort feelings in one's own house one or two years earlier. The question

is a legitimate one, and was addressed by exploring the pertinent literature.

Cannell and Kahn (1968) discuss the effects of memory on successfully obtaining

information through interviewing:

16
"Three broad concepts seem to comprise much of the available research

and advice, and to summarize well the conditions for successful interviewing. These are accessibility of the required data to the respondent, cognition or understanding by the respondent..., and motivation

of the respondent to take the [responding] role and fulfill its

requirements," (p . 535) (emphasis in the original); and, "These are not

independent factors; they [are]... a set of interrelated conditions for

attaining adequate measurement by means of interviewing..."

The principal concern in the present study is with accessibility. "One

aspect of accessibility has to do with memory decay or forgetting. The

respondent may once have had the requested information readily available, but

it has now receded from easy recollection or may be completely unavailable."

(Cannnell & Kahn, 1968, p. 541) However, "’remembered,' ’forgotten,’ and

’never known’ should not be regarded as absolute categories. ’Forgotten’

material can often be recalled with sufficient effort... there is a powerful

interaction between memory and motivation." (Cannell & Kahn, 1968, p. 543).

"There is general agreement among students and practitioners of interviewing

that the respondent's motivation or willingness to report is the most important issue in the accuracy of interview data, and that the context of the

material sought has a_ major effect on respondent motivation " (Cannell & Kahn,

1968, p. 545, emphasis added). The fact that the questionnaire in the present

study is focused on matters concerning weatherization, energy conservation

and closely related comfort should help motivate respondents who have been

closely involved with a weatherization demonstration for three years.

Quoting again from Cannell and Kahn: "Our problem ..., as far as accessibility is concerned, is to bring the relevant events to the consciousness of

the respondent." Virtually all references to memory factors found in the

literature refer to recollection of "events," not of impressions—affects.

Thus, there is a dearth of direct evidence on the questions of concern to

this study. Remembering "how you felt" would seem to be rather different in

implications for "accuracy" than "When did you ?" or "How often did you

?" The authors continue, "... the material which a respondent is likely

to find acccessible to him will be a complex function of elapsed time since

the event, current cues... and the significance of the event in his life."

(Cannell & Kahn, 1968, p. 560)

Seymour Sudman and Norman Bradburn have published an extensive study of

response effects (average error rates) in surveys (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974).

The authors calculated, from published studies, response effects for various

factors which may affect the accuracy of responses to survey questions. In

establishing a model for the understanding and analysis of response effects,

Sudman and Bradburn identified three types of variables as potential causes

of such effects: 1) task structure, 2) degree to which the task engages problems of self-presentation for the respondent, and 3) salience of the required

information. Task structure involves matters of open- versus closed-ended

questions, use of cards or other stimuli for aided-recall or to minimize

interviewer or respondent interpretation of questions, and self- versus interviewer-administration. The authors suggest that "conditions of high

17
structure tend toward the maximal adaptation of the task to the commonalities

among respondents and to reduce sources of variation." (Sudman & Bradburn,

1974, pp . 8-9) (The questionnaire in the present study is highly structured)

Problems of self-presentation arise primarily from questions posing some threat to the respondent, those evoking some socially-desirable response, or those to which the respondent does not know the answer but wishes to appear

knowledgeable and cooperative. The questionnaire in the present study does

not involve questions of the first two types; as protection against response

effects from lack of knowledge, the respondent was urged to feel free to

state when he did not know or recall the requested information, because

"the researchers realize that it may be hard for you to remember your impressions from that long ago.”

Sudman and Bradburn consider the saliency, or importance to the respondent,

of the requested information as a significant influence on response effects.

It seems a reasonable assumption that their comfort is salient to most people

Throughout their paper, these authors distinguish two types of survey data:

1) information about behavior (which can, in principal, be verified against

records) and 2) information about attitudes or "psychological states" (to

which the term accuracy does not apply) (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974, pp . 6-7).

In the present questionnaire, there are behavioral items about thermostat

settings, use of rooms in one’s house in winter, or amount of clothes worn. There are attitudinal questions about temperature sensations and comfort.

There exists a differentiation between the reporting of the two kinds of

information. An additional factor affecting a person’s recall of attitudinal

matters is the "clarity of the respondent's state relevant to the issue"

"the extent to which the respondent has a well-formulated attitude or idea

about the question he is asked...” (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974, p. 12). The

literature of human thermal comfort research stretching over the last 50

years shows that this particular concern is not a problem for the present

study: People do know what is meant and how they feel when asked, "How warm

or cold are you?", or "How comfortable are you?"

Factors associated with differential memory affect both types of data.

The four factors Sudman and Bradburn treat as affecting any recall of information are 1) recency, 2) importance, 3) complexity, and 4) affect or "repression." The last two are not involved significantly with any of the

responses sought by the questionnaire used in this study. As to importance,

I presume wintertime comfort and related behaviors to be fairly important

to most people. Winter environments do not always and automatically stay

within comfort limits, and, by its very nature, the discomfort experienced

when those limits are exceeded is strongly conducive to behavioral and other

responses on the part of the individual.

The factor, of these four, most pertinent to the present study is recency.

These authors, as do Cannell and Kahn, emphasize that none of the factors is

fixed and unchangeable, but that, "The formulation of the questions, however.

18
plays an Important role because it... can radically affect the perceived

saliency of the requested information." (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974, p. 13)

This advice was an important guide in the development of my questionnaire.

According to Worcester (1972), "What little research has been done on [long-term recall]... suggests that memory is fairly accurate where behavior

is regular... much less accurate for the occasional departure from regularity... or for the informant whose behavior follows no regular pattern"

(p . 74). For this reason, respondents in my study were asked, "Is the

thermostat generally at the same setting each day in winter?"

Thus, the pertinent literature on memory effects in interview data indicates

that recollection of information is a dynamic, not a static function. What

is known suggests that: 1) Some respondents would not remember requested

information from an earlier time period. 2) Some respondents would be able

to provide valid and useful information. 3) The size of the latter group

could be increased by properly phrasing and introducing questions. 4) Appropriate questions in the questionnaire can provide some indication as to the

group to which a respondent belongs. (In the 145 cases analyzed for this

report, approximately 80 percent of the respondents stated they were "very

sure" or "moderately sure" of the comfort and temperature ratings they

reported for the earlier winter.)

19
4 THE PRESENT STUDY

4.1 RESPONDENTS

The total of 240 experimental and control houses are distributed among 12

sites (with a control group of three to six houses at each site). The site

areas represent a range of inhabited climates in the United States , from

Fargo, ND, St. Paul/Minneapolis, and Portland, ME, to Oakland, CA, Atlanta,

and Charleston, SC. (Unfortunately, no questionnaire data were received

from Portland, and those from St. Paul/Minneapolis and Chicago required too

much "cleaning up" to have been included in this report.)

Since the demonstration was sponsored by the Community Services Administration,

participating households had to meet the Federal government's "low income"

guidelines. People are in the "low income" category for various reasons. In

some of the demonstration homes, the head of household is retired and living

on Social Security—and consequently in the low income category. Some cases represent female-headed households. Although direct data relevant to the reasons for the household being in the low income category was not collected,

the distribution of the ages of respondents to the questionnaire suggests

that perhaps the "retired" households predominate. (See table 2.) Most,

but not all, respondents were the head of the household.

Table 2

Distribution of Respondent Ages

<20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 ?

2 6 8 20 25 31 36 15 2

Houses for the demonstration were obtained thusly: 1) Candidate houses were proposed by local Community Action agencies, usually from their existing

list of households that had applied for weatherization assistance. 2) Two

year fuel consumption records for all proposed houses were run through a "balance point" analysis—a regression analysis of fuel consumption against

degree days (a standard measure of the coldness of winter weather). To ensure valid "baseline” pre-weatherization fuel consumption, a minimum

correlation coefficient (R^) of 0.9 was used as a selection criterion.

3) From the resulting set of qualified households/houses, the experimental

and control groups were selected as follows: the experimental group was to

consist of "cells" of a minimum of five houses—each "cell" being characterized by a building type/construction type combination, e.g., "one-story

detached, frame" or "two-story attached, solid masonry." This arrangement

was predicated on our expectation that differences between the thermal performance of the different types might necessitate analyzing them separately

regarding fuel usage.

20
Houses that ended up as control houses tended to be: 1) houses of a type too

few at a particular site to constitute a "cell", 2) houses irregular in shape

(e.g., "L"-shaped), thus more difficult to analyze thermally, and 3) houses

whose owners did not want extensive weatherization (e.g., wall insulation

retrofitting). For purposes of the energy conservation study, control houses

were instrumented, weekly readings collected and all other testing and measuring done to the house, but no weatherization work was done on the houses.

Note that control group houses were not obtained from a common pool of subjects

by random selection. However, careful examination of the process by which

experimental and control houses were picked did not identify any factors

likely to cause systematic differential biasing of comfort impressions due to

a household being in the control group.

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

To study the effects of weatherization of occupied houses on the comfort and

temperature sensation reactions of the occupants before and after the weatherization work, a field study was conducted. The occupants were used as the

"instruments" to assess the comfort of the houses.

With data available both from houses that were weatherized ("experimental")

and ones that were not ("control"), the study was cast in the form of a "nonequivalent control group design" (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, pp . 47-50).

The key characteristic of this design is that the experimental and control

cases are not drawn from a common pool by random selection, consequently

the control cases cannot automatically be assumed to be equivalent to the

others. Two particular issues are important in relating the present study

to the model: 1) How the control group was selected (discussed above), and

2) How the pre- and post-test measures were obtained. The comfort and

temperature ratings and the relevant behavioral data, for both pre- and

post-test situations, were obtained by means of retrospective questioning

using a survey instrument. This is clearly a weak link in the study. The

alternative—obtaining comfort assessments before the weatherization work

was done, and then again afterward—might well be affected by even greater

problems of shift in the subjective standard against which respondents judged

comfort levels. (T. Cook and D. Campbell (1976) discuss this as an "instrumentation" problem.) In the present approach of employing retrospective

questions, respondents could be asked during a single interview to make both

comparative judgements ("Have you noticed any change in the comfort in your

house over the last two winters?") and absolute judgements ("How would you

rate the comfort of your house this past winter?", and, later in the questionnaire, "How would you rate the comfort of your house in winter a year

ago?"). Then one can compare the responses on the two types of questions for

congruence

.

In the context of the body of theory and practice of field studies of thermal

comfort discussed earlier, this study asked respondents to do something

different than has been done before: to make integrated, retrospective

evaluations of the overall comfort and temperature characteristics in their

house and in individual rooms in their house. It asked respondents to report

their environmental comfort impressions at two times separated by a year (or

21
two). Legitimate questions can be raised as to whether these are reasonable

expectations to place on people.

Concerning the possible threats to internal validity of this field study

design, Campbell and Stanley state that we can regard it as controlling the

main effects of history, maturation, testing, and instrumentation, assuming

"the experimental and the control groups are [similar] in their recruitment"

(Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 48). From the above description of sample

selection, it is evident that the two groups were chosen from a common pool,

and it is only the process of selection of experimental versus control houses,

itself, that could have introduced a bias.

In this review of validity threats, we are considering the "pre-post" comfort

ratings as the critical measure in question. For houses in the control group

due to lack of five cases for a "cell," it is impossible to hypothesize a bias

due to interaction of selection with another factor. For irregular-shaped

houses, the degree of interior temperature variation would be expected to be

relatively higher than in those with a regular, rectangular shape (because of

the higher exterior wall-to-volume ratio). However, this—again—should not

affect the "pre-post" comparison of comfort impressions. In this regard, each

house serves as its own control. For households rejecting extensive weatherization work, it is also difficult to hypothesize an effect on "pre-post"

comparisons

.

Although one phase of the analysis seeks to evaluate the combined (mean) pre

and post measures, it does seem implausible that these would be subject to a statistical regression artifact. The method used for selecting control

versus experimental houses from the common pool does not appear to offer any

basis for supposing that "pre" scores of either group would be systematically

biased. (The mean "pre" comfort and temperature ratings of the two groups,

as calculated, bore out this expectation.)

Although control households received a 50 percent fuel subsidy for two heating seasons, promised "normal" weatherization of their houses was postponed

from its originally-scheduled summer 1979 date (due to the necessary extension of the measurement period). This delay caused unhappiness on the part

of some control house homeowners, and could result in "resentful demoralization of respondents receiving less desirable treatments." (Cook & Campbell,

1976, p. 228) This would seem more likely to cause total lack of cooperation with the survey effort than to bias "pre-post" measures.

Some problem of "imitation of the treatment has occurred." Some control

households have, on their own, installed storm windows or carried out other

low-level weatherization of their dwellings. (This is, of course, also a threat to the basic fuel consumption comparisons of the demonstration.)

Active steps were taken to make sure that such conditions are recorded, so that data about them will be available when the results are interpreted.

Since the houses in a site area are scattered geographically, with no pattern

to experimental and control houses, local history can only be expected to

have a random effect on outcomes.

22
Ideally, one would combine the pre-test comfort ratings of experimental and

control houses, verify that the control group is equivalent, and then show

post-test stability of control houses and improvement in experimental

houses. Because of climate differences, house differences, individual differences, and the "noise" in the measuring instrument, I was doubtful that

this approach could be expected to produce clearcut results. Furthermore,

some of the relevant test items had pre-post comparison "built into" them.

Thus, I planned to carry out the analysis for this stage of the study on a house-by-house basis, by constructing a composite comfort change "index” for

each house. Assuming the measuring "instrument" used (retrospective reporting of behavior and feelings) is reasonably stable, control houses should

exhibit a relatively small value for the composite index and experimental

houses a rather larger value. However, it has been possible, as discussed

below, to demonstrate significant shifts in the mean comfort and temperature

ratings of the samples.

4.3 INSTRUMENT

Earlier I alluded to the occupants/respondents as instruments being used for

"measuring" the comfort conditions of a house during two winters, separated

by one or two years. In a stricter sense, what I have endeavored to "measure"

is respondents' perceptions or feelings of wintertime comfort—and the

instrument is a complex comprised of: 1) the respondents' recollections of

comfort-related perceptions and behaviors, 2) the questionnaire used to

prompt and direct the effort to elicit information about the perceptions and

behavior, and 3) the interview situation, including the interviewer and the

setting

.

The first part of this complex was discussed in section 3.6, "Effects of

recall and memory factors in obtaining survey data." The second and third

parts remain, to be considered here.

The questionnaire developed for this study, which appears as appendix B, was designed to serve a somewhat larger purpose than just the comfort investigation. To help in evaluating and interpreting the fuel usage measurements,

we needed to obtain background information about the occupants of the houses

over the demonstration measurement period—concerning the demographics of

the household, the possible non-occupancy of the house at times during the

last three years, and thermostat setting patterns. However, most of the

items did pertain, directly or indirectly, to the comfort investigation. In

order to seek as rich descriptions of the respondents' comfort impressions

as could be obtained, I asked them to provide, if they were able, individual

comfort (and temperature) ratings for the various rooms of the house. To

simplify the recording and processing of this data, copies of floor diagrams

were used. These diagrams had already been provided to the research staff as part of the temperature stratification test data. (Furthermore, these diagrams will permit me to link the two sets of data—comfort ratings for rooms

and for specific, particularly uncomfortable places, and the temperature

stratification readings—for future efforts to try to determine the degree

to which one can be "mapped" onto the other.) Note the questions concerning

verifying the correctness of the diagrams (Q. 28 and Q. 43), nonuse of any

23
rooms in winter and reasons therefore (Q. 29 and Q. 44), comments about any

rooms rated "uncomfortable" (Q. 34 and Q. 48), and locations and ratings of

any particularly uncomfortable places (Q. 35 and Q. 49).

Questions 33, 36, 47, and 50 asked respondents to record room comfort and

temperature ratings directly on the floor diagrams. I hoped that this technique would prove helpful to respondents in relating their recollections to

the specific areas of their house, and to focus respondents' attention on the

thermal states of the rooms, in contrast to their purely personal thermal

states

.

The questionnaire incorporated the two rating scales commonly used in comfort

studies in this country for respondents to report their comfort and temperature impressions: The "ASHRAE" seven-point scale of warmth sensation, and a slightly modified version of the comfort/discomfort sensation scale used by

the John B. Pierce Foundation. I extended the latter scale by the addition

of a point labelled "5-Very Comfortable" beyond the original terminus of the

scale, "4-Comfortable."

In addition to the comfort- and temperature- rating data, the questionnaire

sought other pertinent information: Thermostat setting practices (Q. 11-20)

would serve as a possible indicator of activity along one path of behavioral

thermoregulation (as discussed above). Respondents were asked whether they

"have noticed any change in the wintertime comfort of your house over the

last three winters;" if so, they were asked to give ratings on scales of

change of several attributes that may be related to comfort (Q. 24).

Considering that another avenue for behavioral thermoregulation is changing

the amount of clothing worn, I sought data that would permit a rough indication of any changes over the period of the demonstration in amounts of

clothing worn (Q. 55-57, and 59, 60). Finally, since amount of bodily

activity affects the thermal balance of the body, hence feelings of thermal

comfort, questions were included about any unusual activities employed to

keep warm at times of cold weather (Q. 58 and Q. 61). I took considerable

care to design the questionnaire so that it could be used for both experimental

and control houses identically, except for occasional "skips," and to avoid

using possibly biasing references to the "treatment" (i.e., weatherization)

.

4.4 PROCEDURE

The CSA Weatherization Demonstration commenced in the summer of 1977.

Solicitations of proposed demonstration houses were sent out to the Community

Action agencies in the selected cities, data on proposed houses were received,

and during the fall of 1977 the fuel data records were analyzed to identify

those houses for which pre-weatherization fuel usage could be confidently

determined. By the spring of 1978, the CAA's at most sites had been notified

of the houses accepted for the demonstration, and had been sent lists of

weatherization retrofit options to be installed in each house. The project

plan envisaged that weatherization work be completed by the fall of 1978, and

that the winter of 1978-79 would be the "post-weatherization" measurement

period. However, problems with getting funds out to the sites and subsequent

delays in getting the weatherization work accomplished pushed back the

24
schedule by as much as a year at some sites—with the retrofit work not being

completed until the summer, or even the fall, of 1979.

It was important to minimize the required recall period for questionnaire

items referring to the pre-weatherization wintertime, in the interest of

minimizing the problems of recall and memory. Consequently, the reference

dates for these items were related to the actual time schedule followed at

each site—even to individual houses, where that was necessary. Thus, some refer back to the "winter of 1978-79" and some had to refer back to the

earlier period of "winter 1977-78."

The questionnaire was drafted in early 1980, and a preliminary version sent,

with a cover letter of instructions, to several site agencies for pilot

testing. This resulted in changes in the final version. In retrospect of

the entire interviewing effort, while some needed changes should have been

identified by more extensive pilot testing, they were few and relatively

minor. The draft questionnaire was submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for clearance—a requirement for all data-collection forms going

out from Federal agencies to ten or more respondents. The 0MB review process

also resulted in improvement of the questionnaire—and the study as a whole—regarding taking cognizance of, and attempting to control for, recall

and memory factors affecting the retrospective data. I pre-labelled the

final questionnaires with site identification and house numbers (since those

for experimental and control houses differed slightly—questions applying

only to experimental houses were blanked out in the questionnaires for control

houses). I placed two copies of the floor plan(s) for a house—labelled "This

Past Winter" and "Winter 1978-79" (or "Winter 1977-78", as appropriate) —in

the questionnaire for that house—so that they could be handed by the

interviewer to the respondent for recording room comfort and temperature

ratings. The ratings scales—for "comfort" and for "temperature"—were

printed, as reproduced at the end of the questionnaire in appendix B, on

front and back sides of a five by eight inch card, to be handed to the

respondent for perusal while the ratings were being recorded on the floor

diagrams. The questionnaires, together with a cover letter and some additional

instructions (reproduced as appendix A of this report) were sent out to the

field agencies, and the interviews were conducted in June, 1980. Telephone

contact with the interviewers, to deal with problems that came up in the course of interviewing, was frequent during this period

Once the completed questionnaires were received back, the data was coded by

the author. In view of the size and nature of the data set for each house,

and the likelihood of wanting to use SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences) at some point in the analysis of the data, SPSS-compatible formating

was used. In order to accomodate possible lists of unused rooms, of rooms

rated "C3" or less, and the ratings data for up to 12 rooms, seven 80-column

cards were required for each "case."

A contractor keypunched the data from standard 80-column coding sheets.

Once the data file was in computer disk form, all subsequent processing has

been accomplished with a Perkin-Elmer Interdata 7/32 maxi-minicomputer

(located at the Center for Building Technology of the National Bureau of

25
Standards), except that the analysis of the mean comfort and temperature

ratings was done on the Bureau's UNIVAC 1108.

I wrote two programs needed for processing and analyzing the data, in

Interdata FORTRAN VII. First, a program was created to read (most of) the

data items in the file, and print out the data for each house in a two-page

format for "at a glance" perusal. This printout served two purposes: 1) It serves as a "reference book" of the questionnaire data from the houses as various parts of the larger demonstration analysis process are being accomplished. (When analysis of post-weatherization fuel usage data for a house

turns up a point of unusually low consumption in January, 1980, reference to

this listing may quickly show that the occupants were away and the house was unoccupied for three weeks of that month.) 2) The listing also served as a valuable and efficient medium for "proofing" and correcting the data file.

The data listings were proofread against the questionnaires themselves, thus

at one step verifying both the coding (which required considerable "cleaning

up," due to issues not resolved, or identified, until part way through the

coding process) and the keypunching (which had introduced a few errors).

A sample of output from this program (called QUSTEDIT) is included as appendix C of this report. As can be seen, some data items were "decoded"

for easier checking (for example, name of interviewer), some codes were printed as part of the listing (thermostat setting changes, clothing change),

while yet others were printed verbatim (e.g., most "8"s for "NA"). The program performed some counting or calculation: counting up the number of rooms

listed as unused or described as "uncomfortable” ("C3" or less) (to facilitate checking the collating process described below), and calculating the

length of the interview. All data pertaining to specific rooms were collated

and listed in a table at the end of the house record. These included, for

each winter time: 1) rooms listed as unused, 2) rooms described as uncomfortable, and 3) particularly uncomfortable places identified in rooms. The

data in the table read as follows: room identification (pre-edited to match

room identifications used in temperature stratification data—initial digit

identifies floor); "1" (or some specific code for reason) if the room was generally unused this past winter; the comfort and temperature ratings for

the room this past winter; two columns under "P.U." listing: the number of

particularly uncomfortable places identified in a room and the (compass)

orientation of specific, particularly uncomfortable places; the "C" and "T"

ratings of such places; a code for rooms described as uncomfortable; followed

by eight more columns for the similar data for the earlier winter.

After verifying and correcting the data, I wrote a program for analyzing the

data. The creation of this program, called QU STANAL , started with the use of

the "tried and proven" READ statements of the QUSTEDIT program. (Proofing the

data had verified that these statements were, in fact, reading the correct

columns for each variable. Actually, I modified the READ statements for

QUSTANAL so as not to read and store data unneeded in the analysis; but,

working from the already-used commands contributed significantly to ease and

accuracy of design of the "read" portion of the analysis program.) Program

QUSTANAL has progressed through several versions, as will become evident in

the following section.

26
4.5 DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Analysis of questionnaire data from the nine sites strongly suggests that

many residents are likely to notice a definite difference in the wintertime

comfort of their houses after weatherization of the dwellings, in contrast to

residents of houses that are not weatherized.

What data has been analyzed? Completed questionnaires were received and the

data keypunched, edited and analyzed, from nine sites: Atlanta; Charleston,

SC; Colorado Springs; Easton/Allentown/Bethlehem; Fargo; Oakland; St. Louis;

Tacoma; and Washington (Hughesville , MD). The data set comprises 145

questionnaires

.

Are all of these questionnaires included in the analysis results reported

below? In view of the above-discussed concern about recollection of data, cases were disregarded if respondents stated they were less than "moderately

sure" (i.e., "somewhat unsure" or lower) about any of the comfort ratings

(or the temperature ratings, depending on the particular analysis that was

run). Although the precise numbers vary, again depending on the particular

analysis, roughly 20 percent of the 145 cases were eliminated due to this

criterion. When each of the three analyses discussed below was conducted, a few additional cases had to be disregarded for one or more of the following

reasons, as appropriate: 1) inadequate comfort ratings for comparison;

2) inadequate temperature ratings for comparison; or, 3) insufficient data to

compute at least four of the possible five indicator components, in the case

of the Composite Comfort Change index. Of the remaining cases in each

analysis, approximately 75 percent were experimental (weatherized) houses and

25 percent control houses.

Exactly what weatherization retrofitting was done to the "treated houses"

included in this analysis? This paper reports only "gross" analysis across

the entire nine-site sample. Because of the cost/benefit criterion applied

to the selection of retrofit options for installation in the demonstration,

more retrofit work tended to be prescribed for houses in the more northerly

or colder locations. On the other hand, some prescribed retrofits were not

installed, either because the house already had them (e.g., storm windows, or adequate attic insulation) or due to some problem in the field. Consequently,

there was considerable variation in the amount of weatherization work applied

to houses. Table 3, (next page) shows, for the 112 cases that constitute the

basis for the results reported below: 1) the number of control and experiment

houses, 2) the percentage of experimental houses that received various retrofits to the building shell, and 3) the 30-year average degree day figures, a comparative measure of the normal amount of "coldness" over a year. It can

be seen (last column of the table) that more than 90 percent of these houses

received attic insulation, a little less than half wall insulation, a little

more than half storm windows, and fractions ranging from one-quarter to

almost nine-tenths received various infiltration-reducing work.

27
Table 3

Severity of Winter Weather & Options Installed, by Site

SITE: CHA OAK ATL WAS STL TAC ABE CSP FAR ALL

30-yr. avg. 1904 2909 3095 4211 4750 5185 5827 6473 9271 -- - Degree Days

(Numbers of houses)

CONTROL 4 3 4 4 3 1 1 3 4 27

WEATHERIZED 14 6 7 6 21 2 8 12 6 82

(Percent of weatherized houses)

OPTIONS INSTALLED: INFILTRATION: Replace Broken Glass 64 67 0 0 0 100 88 92 0 40 Reset Glazing 43 17 14 18 0 50 63 50 0 26

Replace Threshold 100 100 14 0 0 0 0 100 0 40

Seal Cracks/Holes 100 33 14 0 0 0 13 67 0 32 Weatherstrip Windows 93 0 29 18 0 0 63 50 100 40

Caulk Windows 100 0 43 100 86 100 13 100 83 74 Weatherstrip Doors 93 100 57 100 86 100 63 100 100 88

Caulk Doors 100 0 57 100 0 100 25 100 83 55 W/S Attic Hatch 79 0 29 0 0 50 63 50 100 38 CONDUCTION: Install Storm Windows 7 0 71 100 90 100 0 92 0 54 Install Triple Glazing 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 100 10

Install Storm Doors 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 4 Insulate Attic 93 100 100 100 95 100 63 100 100 94 Insulate Walls 0 0 29 83 43 100 50 83 100 46

Insulate Basement Walls/Slab/Crawl Space 64 0 71 67 43 100 0 75 100 54

Site Identifiers:

ABE - Allentown/Easton/Bethlehem, PA OAK - Oakland, CA ATL - Atlanta STL - St. Louis, MO

CHA - Charleston, SC TAC - Tacoma, WA

CSP - Colorado Springs, CO WAS - Washington (Hughesville

FAR - Fargo, ND

28
What analyses have been carried out and what results obtained for these 112

houses? A Composite Comfort Change index has been constructed, and analyzed.

Mean comfort ratings have been calculated for experimental and for control

houses, as have mean temperature ratings, and these have been analyzed.

4.5.1 Composite Comfort Change Index

Since some of the data items relating to before-after comfort comparison had

comparison built into them, and in light of the theoretical construct of

"comfort" discussed earlier, the first analysis approach used was to construct a Composite Comfort Change index (CCCI) for each house. This index

comprised five components, or indicators. These were derived as follows:

1 - "Thermostat" indicator: If the thermostat was formerly set higher during

particularly cold weather, but was not so changed this past winter (i.e.,

1977-80), suggesting lessened occupant reaction to lowered mean radiant

temperature caused by cold walls or to drafts, this was taken as an indicator

of changed (i.e., improved) comfort. If the house did not have a thermostat,

this component was classified as "missing." (An option in QUSTANAL permits

using any lowering of the usual thermostat setting over the course of the

demonstration as indication of improved comfort. However, since the reason

for lowering the thermostat was not recorded and this could be purely a response to conservation appeals or economy desires, rather than any reaction

to weatherization, this is too loose a criterion, and was not used in the

final analysis runs). For the 109 cases that "passed" the above-described

criteria for inclusion in this analysis, the frequency distribution of this

component was as shown in table 4.

Table 4

Frequency Distribution of "Thermostat" Indicator (%(N))

Improvement No Improvement Missing

Experimental 32(25) 40(31) 27(21)

Control 0( 0) 50(13) 50(13)

To turn around the interpretation of this particular set of data, for a moment, from that of an indication of improved thermal comfort in the house

to that of a direct measure of reduced propensity to "turn up" the thermostat

in unusually cold weather, hence reduced fuel consumption: we can observe

that 45 percent of the households in experimental houses that have thermostats

appear to have exhibited this energy-saving response to weatherization, while

none of the control houses made such a change.

29
2 - "Noticed difference" indicator: This was computed from question 24

("...have [you] noted any change in the wintertime comfort of your house....")

and the related scales on the following page of the questionnaire. If question 24 was answered "yes" and at least two of three scales ("cooler-warmer",

"more-less drafty", and "more-less uniform temperatures") were rated near

the scale ends ("6" or "7" for the first two, "2" or "1" for "uniform temperatures"), this was taken as a indication of improved comfort. The distribution

of this indicator is shown in table 5.

Table 5

Frequency Distribution of "Noticed Difference" Indicator (%(N))

Improvement No Improvement Missing

Experimental 91(70) 9( 7) 0( 0)

Control 19( 5) 81(21) 0( 0)

3 - "Clothing change" component" This was generated by a weighted combination

of the question about overall clothing levels (Q. 55) and the questions about

frequency of sweater or "extra" wrap wearing. A "yes" on the first question

was taken to indicate improved comfort. A "no", combined with a net reduction

in frequency of sweater wearing of at least four units on the scale was also so interpreted

.

Table 6

Frequency Distribution of "Clothing Change" Indicator (%(N))

Improvement No Improvement Missing

Experimental 39(30) 61(47) 0( 0)

Control 12( 3) 88(23) 0( 0)

The last two components incorporate the comfort ratings ascribed 1) to the

whole house, and 2) to individual rooms. For these two items, the difference

criterion is specified (>^d.c.) when an analysis run is made. Only if the

"post" rating exceeds the "pre" rating by at least the specified amount is

improved comfort indicated. The analysis has been run using criteria of one

and two scale units.

30
4 - "Overall comfort rating" component: This is derived from the overall

house "C" ratings — Q. 27 and Q. 42.

Table 7

Frequency Distribution of "Overall Comfort Rating" Indicator (%(N))

Improvement No Improvement Missing

with "comfort criterion" = 1:

Experimental 86(66) 13(10) K 1)

Control 35 ( 9) 62(16) 4( 1)

with "comfort criterion" = 2:

Experimental 56(43) 43(33) K 1)

Control 15( 4) 81(21) 4( 1)

In light of the "fuzziness" of this scale, as discussed earlier, use of the

stricter criterion of two scale units is probably preferable. However, as can be observed from these frequency distributions, that analysis approach

is less effective for distinguishing experimental houses, although more so for control houses.

5 - "Average comfort rating" component: For this indicator, the individual

comfort ratings of the rooms were combined in a simple, unweighted average.

Table 8

Frequency Distribution of "Average Comfort Rating" Indicator (%(N))

Improvement No Improvement Missing

with "comfort criterion" = 1:

Experimental 58(45) 40(31) K 1)

Control 15( 4) 85(22) 0( 0)

with "comfort criterion" = 2:

Experimental 23(18) 75(58) K i)

Control 4( 1) 96(25) 0( 0)

31
The CCCI was constructed on the rationale of a "summated score" as discussed

in Research Methods in Social Relations (Selltiz, Wrightsman, & Cook, 1976,

pp. 417-418). Since each of the data points which are incorporated into the

index components are, according to established human comfort theory, positively

related to people's perceptions of thermal comfort, it seemed plausible that,

the more one's feelings of wintertime comfort have improved, the more of these

items to which one would be likely to respond positively. The individual

indicators were set to "1" (improvement in comfort impression indicated) or

"0" (no change indicated), and the results summed to generate the CCCI for

each house. (If an indicator was missing or presented some other problem, it was set to "9", and disregarded in computing the house score.)

Since houses that do not have thermostats would have a possible total score

of four, rather than five, I used the proportion of the summated score to the

possible total as the score for analysis. I set a minimum requirement of four

of the indicators being available, so the possible scores were the various

fractions with 5 or 4 as denominator.

Analyzing the data set with a "comfort criterion" of one scale unit produced

the distribution of CCCI scores shown in table 9. Since this is an ordinal,

but not an equal-interval scale, the mode has been selected as the appropriate

statistic for describing the central tendency of the scores, as suggested by

Siegal (1956, p. 25).

Table 9

Frequency Distributions of "Composite Comfort Change Index" Scores (N)

Score Experimental Control

1.00 19 1 0.80 14 0

0.75 6 2

0.60 10 1 0.50 6 0

0.40 13 2

0.25 2 1 0.20 4 3

0.00 3 16

Modal Values: 1.00 0.

This set of distributions was analyzed for the strength of indications of

differences between the experimental and the control house sets by using the

Test for Two Independent Samples (Siegal, 1956, p. 104-111). In order to

meet the requirement for this test of minimizing the number of cells with

expected frequencies of less than five, the scores were grouped into five

32
sets (0.0 - 0.20; 0.21 - 0.40; 0.41 - 0.60; 0.61 - 0.80; and 0.81 - 1.00).

The calculated value of was 44.59. With four degrees of freedom, as in

this case, the critical value of x^ f° r p=0.001 is 18.46. Thus, difference

between scores for the population of experimental houses and those for the

population of control houses is very strongly indicated.

Since the above test with five rows says nothing about the direction of

differences, I then re-ran the test with the scores simply dichotomized above

and below 0.50. This analysis produced a calculated x^ of 19.2. The critical

value of x^ with one degree of freedom at p=0.001 is 10.8. Thus, it appears

highly likely that houses that get weatherized will score significantly higher

on the "Composite Comfort change" index than non-weatherized control houses.

4.5.2 Comfort Ratings

As indicated above, the questionnaire sought two sets of comfort ratings (on

the five-point scale, shown at the end of the questionnaire in appendix B) —

"before" and "after" ratings for 1) the whole house, and 2) for each room ordinarily used in winter. Means were calculated for experimental and control

houses for each of these.

Looking first at the "overall house" (i.e., integer) comfort ratings, I obained the following mean scores (on the one to five scale):

Table 10

Means of Overall House Comfort Ratings

(Number of cases in parentheses)

"PRE" "POST"

Experimental 2.74 (76) 4.38 (77)

Control 2.85 (26) 3.20 (25)

I have not yet been able to run a house-by-house correlation of the average

of room "C" ratings ("pre" and "post") against the house overall "C" rating.

However, taking the mean of the room ratings as a "house average * C * rating",

the mean house averages for the two groups exhibit a pattern quite similar

to that for the overall "C" ratings:

33
Table 11

Means of House Average Comfort Ratings

(Number of cases in parentheses)

"PRE" "POST"

Experimental 2.99 (76) 4.17 (76)

Control 2.98 (26) 3.26 (26)

Since the "house average" comfort ratings represent a relatively "finer" scale

of comfort measurement of the house, I chose to analyze these only. Four

different techniques have been used to analyze these "house average" comfort

ratings

:

1. Analysis of variance. In keeping with the nature of the "nonequivalent

control group design" (discussed on pages 21-23, above), a one-way analysis of

variance was first run on all of the "pre" ratings, to ascertain that all of

the houses did, in fact, come from a common population, as regards house wintertime comfort ratings. With the one factor being "experimental" or "control",

the F statistic calculated at 0.0036, which value lies at the 4.802 percent

point of the F distribution in this case. Thus, the difference between "pre"

ratings for experimental and for control houses is not significant.

Then a similar one-way analysis of variance was run on all of the "post"

house average comfort ratings. In this analysis, the F statistic calculated

out at 30.0173. This value lies at the 100.000 percent point of the F distribution. Thus, the difference between comfort ratings of weatherized and of

control houses can be said to be significant at the 99.9% probability level.

2. Box plots. The differences in the distributions of "pre" and "post"

comfort ratings for both control and experimental houses are shown by the

box plots in figure 3 (next page). "Before" refers to the "earlier winter"

(i.e., 1978/79, or 1977/78) and "after”--the winter of 1979/80. In these

plots, the box indicates the 25th to the 75th percentile of the distribution,

the outlying points are the maximum and minimum values, and the enclosed point

is the median of the distribution. It can be seen that, while there was

some upward shift of the comfort ratings in control houses, the "slippage"

appears minor. On the other hand, in the experimental houses, the middle 50

percent of the ratings after weatherization lies entirely above the middle 50

percent of the ratings before weatherization; further, the minimum reported

comfort rating "after" falls above the 25th percentile of the "before" distribution, and the maximum "before" rating lies below the 75th percentile of the

"after" ratings.

34
Figure 3 Box plots of distributions of "house average" comfort ratings

C0

0

R

T

IN

D

EX

3. Kruskal-Wallis test. To further assess the significance of these shifts,

or "slippages", Kruskal-Wallis "H" statistics were calculated for the distributions. This is a non-parametric test of the hypothesis that two samples came from the same population. The two samples (e.g., control house "before"

ratings and control house "after" ratings) are first tagged as to the sample

in which they occurred. The two samples are then combined into a single set,

ranked, and weighted rank sums computed for the two original sets. The two

rank sums are compared to derive the H static, which is closer to 1.0 the more

likely the two samples were taken from the same population.

For control house "before” and "after" average house comfort ratings, the H*

statistic (H, corrected for the existence of ties among the ratings) was 1.030802. The probability of exceeding this value if the populations are indeed identical is 0.31265—that is, a higher value would occur by chance in

almost one case out of three. Thus, we can infer that the apparent shift is,

indeed, insignificant.

For the experimental house "before" and "after” house average comfort ratings,

H* was computed as 67.86064. The probability of exceeding this value if these

two samples were from an identical population is 0.0000, indicating that the

"before" and "after" comfort impressions that were reported in the experimental

houses are strongly differentiated, and in the direction of improved comfort,

as indicated by the box plots.

35
4. Youden plots. Each of the above analyses has dealt with the various

distributions, overall. None has given any information about house-by-house

relationships between "post" and "pre" comfort ratings. To fill this gap in

the analysis, the Youden plots shown in figures 4 and 5 were prepared. In these,

the "after" rating for each house is plotted against the ’“before” rating for

that house. We would expect that ratings for control houses would tend to

remain unchanged; thus, points for these houses would lie on the diagonal

of the graph. Figure 4 shows this to be generally so. For houses with

higher comfort ratings after weatherization, the points should lie below

(strictly, to the right of) the diagonal, and again figure 5 indicates this

to be generally true for the experimental houses.

4.5.3 Temperature Ratings

In light of the earlier-discussed distinction between comfort sensation and

temperature sensation, and with a view to the expected parallelism between

them, I also asked respondents to ascribe temperature ratings for the "before"

and "after" periods to the individual rooms in their house. These were reported on the standard ASHRAE seven-point scale of warmth having ”4” as center point: "neutral—neither warm nor cool” (as printed at the end of the

questionnaire in appendix B). The calculated means of house averages of these

ratings are shown in table 12 (p. 37).

Figure 4. Youden plot of control "house average" comfort ratings

I

¥

©R

E

5

&FTER

36
Figure 5. Youden plot of experimental "house average" comfort ratings

AFTER

Table 12

Means of House Average Temperature Ratings

(Number of cases in parentheses)

"PRE" "POST"

Experimental 3.38 (74) 4.78 (76)

Control 3.22 (26) 3.39 (26)

Although I have not had the opportunity to compare (correlate) the house

average temperature ratings with the house average comfort ratings, I have

carried out the same analyses on them as on the comfort ratings.

1. Analysis of variance. For the one-way analysis of variance of all "before"

temperature ratings, the one factor being "experimental" or "control", the F

statistic calculated at 0.60839. This value lies at 56.280 percent, well within

the body of the distribution of the F statistic. Thus, the difference between

the means of "pre" ratings for control and for experimental houses is not significant. The one-way analysis of variance of all "post" temperature, ratings

resulted in an F value of 25.5752. This value lies beyond the 99.970 point of

37
the F distribution. Something had caused a shift in the ratings of the experimental (and/or the control) houses such that they could no longer have come from the same population.

2. Box plots. Again, the distributions show some upward shift in the ratings

from control houses, but the improvement in reported warmth in the weatherized

hosues is much more marked (figure 6).

3. Kruskal-Wallis test. The Kruskal-Wallis H* statistic for control house

"before” and "after” house average temperature ratings was 1.40115. The probability of exceeding this value if the populations are identical is 0. 23934—

thus, the two samples can be inferred to be identical. For the "before" and

"after" temperature ratings reported in the experimental houses, H* was computed

to be 42.05735. This value is significant at better than the 0.99 level,

suggesting that occupants of houses that have been weatherized are highly

likely to report feeling warmer in winter.

4. Youden plots. Again, these plots show that, for control houses (figure 7,

next page) the temperature ratings tended to be about the same "after" as "before", while occupants of the experimental houses tended to report them as "warmer" (e.g., higher rating numbers) after weatherization than before

(figure 8).

Figure 6. Box plots of distributions of "house average" temperature ratings

T

ER

A

T

U1

E

IN

D

EX

38
A brief comment is in order on the "slippage" in the mean values for control

houses. These shifts are consistently upward for the three sets of ratings

data reported above—for both comfort and temperature ratings. I cannot explain

this manifestation. Do people tend to recall earlier winters as colder, more

severe, more uncomfortable? This is one possible explanation. The question

may be deserving of further study.

4.6 CONCLUSION

Although further analysis remains to be conducted on even this questionnaire

data, the study has obtained very encouraging indications that many people are likely to notice an improvement in wintertime comfort of their houses after

weatherizat ion.

I am hopeful that there will be opportunity to round out the research by studying the relationships between the comfort impressions recorded in this survey

data and the physical measurements of wintertime temperature stratification

that were also recorded in the houses.

Figure 7. Youden plot of control "house average" temperature ratings

AFTER

39
H»©nmw

Figure 8. Youden plot of experimental "house average" temperature ratings

AFTER

40
5.0 REFERENCES

Angus, T. C., The control of indoor climate . London: Pergamon Press, 1968.

ASHRAE, Handbook of fundamentals . New York: American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1978.

Berglund, L. C., Radiation measurement for thermal comfort assessment in the

built environment, In Thermal analysis—human comfort—indoor environments,

P roceedings of symposium held at National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,

MD , 11 February 1977. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, SP 491,

1977.

Buskirk, E. R. & Loomis, J. L., Aspects of indoor environments: tolerable versus comfortable thermal environments. Laboratory for Human Performance

Research, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C., Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1963.

Cannel, C. F. & Kahn, R. L., Interviewing. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E.,

Eds., Handbook of Social Psychology . (2nd Ed.), Vol. 2, Research methods.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley , 1968.

Clark, R. E. & Hastings, S. R., Quantified occupant-use factors affecting energy

consumption in residences. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards,

NBSIR 78-1501 , 1979.

Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T., The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and

true experiments in field settings. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Chicago: Rand McNally College

Publishing Co., 1976.

Crenshaw, R., Clark, R. , Grot, R., & Chapman, R., CSA weatherization

demonstration project plan. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards,

NBSIR 79-1706, 1979.

Fanger, P. 0., Thermal comfort—analysis and applications in environmental

engineering . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Gagge, A. P., Man, his environment and his comfort. Heating, Piping and Air

Conditioning , 1969, January, pp . 209-224.

Hardy, J. D., Thermal comfort and health. ASHRAE Journal , 1971, February,

pp . 43-51

.

Humphreys, M. A., Field studies of thermal comfort compared and applied.

Paper prepared for Symposium on Physiological Requirements of the MicroClimate, Prague, September 1975. Building Research Station, Garston

Watford, UK.

41
McIntyre, D. A., Seven point scales of warmth. The Electricity Council

Research Centre, Capenhurst, Chester, UK, ECRC/M957, 1976.

McIntyre, D. A., Design requirements for a comfortable environment. The

Electricity Council Research Centre, Capenhurst, Chester, UK, ECRC/M1185,

1978 (a).

McIntyre, D. A., Three approaches to thermal comfort. Paper presented at

ASHRAE Conference, Atlanta, GA. Electricity Council Research Centre,

Capenhurst, Chester, UK, 1978 (b).

Nevins, R. G. & McNall, P. E., Jr., Performance requirements of the thermal

environment for human occupancy. Performance concept in buildings; proceedings of the joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB symposium, Philadelphia, 1972 , Washington:

National Bureau of Standards, SP 361, Vol. 1 , 1972 , pp . 31-42.

Nevins, R. G., McNall, P. E., Jr., & Stolwijk, J. A. J., How to be comfortable

at 65 to 68 Degrees. ASHRAE Journal , 1974, April, pp . 41-43.

Olesen, B. W., Mortensen, E., Thorshauge, J., & Berg-Munch, B. , Thermal comfort

in a room heated by different methods. (preprint for) ASHRAE Transactions,

1980, Vol. 86.

Rohles, F. H., Temperature or temperament: A psychologist looks at thermal

comfort. (preprint for) ASHRAE Transactions , 1980, Vol. 86.

Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., & Cook, S. W., Research methods in social

relations . (3rd Ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.

Siegal, S., Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences . New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Smith, D. L., Mean radiant temperature and its effects on energy conservation.

In Frants, G., (Ed.) Proceedings of the 4th National Passive Solar Conference

American Section of the International Solar Energy Society, 1979, p. 431.

Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. M. , Response effects in surveys . Chicago: Aldine

Publishing Co., 1974.

Worcester, R. M. (Ed. in Chief), Consumer market research handbook . Maidenhead

Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill Book Co. (UK), Ltd., 1972 .

42
APPENDIX A

Cover Letter and Instructions Sent to Interviewers

A-l

Hay 20. 1980

Dear

I direct your attention to the CSA Weatherlzation Demonstration Project Plan , specifically the section "Recording of Occupancy Characteristics" on page 53. The encloseo questionnaire Is the mechanism we will be using to collect the

needed data about energy-affecting occupant activities and attitudes.

Thanks to your conscientious efforts as Project Coordinators, we now have

considerable data about the physical aspects of energy consianptlon and

weatherlzation for most of the houses In the CSA Demonstration. Because things

that occupants do also affect the energy consunption of their households, we need to "fill a gap" by carefully docianenting, over the whole measurement

period of the Demonstration, certain attributes and attitudes of the households

Attached to this letter you will find one copy of the CSA Weatherlzation

Demonstration Occupant Activities and Attitudes Questionnaire , so that you can read it over and become familiar with it. It is not necessary for you to reproduce it. Within a few days you will receive from Roy Clark a complete

set of questionnaires for your Sample and Control houses. These will be

pre-nunbered for specific houses, and pre-marked with information where needed.

Each questionnaire will also have attached to It two copies of the house floor

plans that you provided with the temperature stratification measurements: one labelled "This Past Winter" and one labelled "Winter of 1978-79." As you will see from reading the questionnaire, these are to be used for recording "comfort

and "temperature" ratings of the spaces in a house, and are to be returned to MBS as part of the completed questionnaires.

A3
$ \

He believe that It would probably be best for the Project Coordinator to do the

Interviewing end complete the questionnaires at Dost sites. Hovever, If the •meter reader" Is acquainted,, and has good rapport, with household members, he/

she may be satisfactory for the job. The Project Coordinator should consult

Roy Clark before sueh a decision Is saade. In any case. It is Important for

consistency and accuracy ©f data that all Interviewing be done by the same Project person.

The person who Is going to do the Interviewing (as well as the Project

Coordinator, if different) should read the questionnaire, and note any

questions he/she has about it. Please call Roy Clark ®s soon as you are ready

to go over in detail the e&ninistration ©f the questionnaire.

Trial runs indicate that an interview ©f 30 to 45 minutes length should be

sufficient for completing a questionnaire. Although it will require some adjustment of your “weekly readings* schedule, I suggest that you work toe Interviews into that schedule. Since it Is Important to have an uninterrupted

half hour to sit down with the householders and obtain the answers to the

questions. It is probably not a good idea to try to combine Interviewing with

the monthly air bag/temperature stratification testing.

I must emphasize that completed questionnaires are the property of toe CSA and

the MBS, and must be forwarded to Richard Crenshaw at the MSS. They are not to be copied at a local agency, since tot confidentiality of tot data is being

guaranteed by the MBS.

Roy looks forward to talking with you soon about this important and exciting

part of toe CSA Heatherization Demonstration. Thank you for your conscientious

consideration of this matter.

RICHARD CRENSHAW, Project Manager

Archi tectural Research group

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology, MEL

Enclosure

A-4
Dear

Please Note—

There ere many factors that can affect the accuracy of the Information

that people give In Interviews. Some Important ones are: the way an Inter- viewer reads a question, a desire on the part of a respondent to be helpful

and say something even where he or she does not know or does not remember the

Information, distractions during the Interview, or the fact that something

asked about my have hanpened too lono boo or have been too unimportant to

the respondent to now be accurately renenbered. Since bad data Is much worse than no data (because It actively misleads us), I uroe you to be very careful.

In conducting the Interviews, to minimize these possible causes of data

Inaccuracy.

Read each statement and question to the respondent exactly as It Is written In the Questionnaire. (This Is Important also for obtaining consistent data from respondents: every resnondent must be answering exactly the sane questions for the answers to be a valid set of data.) It Is also limor- tent to follow exactly the instructions printed In the Questionnaire. You

should always be completely accepting of "don't remember" responses. Do not urge or prompt respondents to come up with answers beyond the prompts that are written in the Questionnaire as a statement or question to be reed to the respondent.

If, In conducting any Interview, you should encounter any uncertainty

•bout what some question (or Instruction) means, please cell me about It as soom as you have the opportunity. That way, we can clear up the confusion

before you do many more Interviews.

To lighten your load a little, note that where the Instructions tell

you to skip a question. It Is not necessary to write anvthlno In the skipped

question. On page 3, you need fill In data only as directed by the Instructions. If all present occupants are the same as those living In the house

when It became a pert of the Demonstration, you will end up with no entries

In Columns 4, 5, and 6 of the Table. Notice that the first line of the Table

Is Intended for Information about the respondent.

When you come to the comfort ratlno questions (beginning on paoe 9),

please note t*» t'llnqs: First, you are to go through the two series of

questions about Individual rooms for one floor at a time (this has to do

with multi-floor houses). First, oo through questions ZB throuoh 36 for

the first floor (which should be the lowest occupied floor In the house,

whatever that Is called), and then go back and start again with ouestlon 28

for the next floor uo. The same Instruction applies fOr questions 43 throuoh

50. Second, please be rmady to give respondents any help they need In making

any needed changes to the floor plans and In getting the rating numbers

recorded In the right pieces on the plans. Note that, as directed by the Instructions In the Questionnaire, the only C-numbers and T-numbers that

should have circles around them are those rating particularly uncomfortable

places In the house.

When you finish an Interview, please slip the floor diagram sheet In between pages of the Questionnaire so that I will receive It right along with

A5
the other data In the Questionnaire. Also, elease send the conoleted Questionnaires on to me 9 few at a time as you aet then completed. I prefer

that you not wait and send them all to me In one packaoe.

Thank you very ®uch for yeur careful attention to these matters. £dLA

Rd^E. Clark

Research Analyst

Center for Building Technolooy

National Bureau of Standards
APPENDIX B

Questionnaire
ig
Fore Approved

CSA HtAJHEHLATICN DEMNSTRAT1CN O.M.B. He. 116-580004

OCCIPAVT ACTIVITIES Kto /OTITUIES QUESTIONNAIIE

cm id

PROJECT

OUSE HO.

DATT MOTE : Items in square brackets ft THIS] *re instructions to the Interviewer, not to be

lead to the Respondent. Is i*0^’ _____

here a square box is provided for m mswer,

simply nark *T' in the correct box.

llEGIfP—READ TD TVC RESPONXn’l Tour cooperation with the CSA Optlmin

Heatherlzatlen Demonstration has been very

valuable to the Nation In this time of

energy concern. Your letting us study your house. Install meters end read

them weekly, conduct other tests tnd measurements, end weather Ize your house

where aooroorlate has made It possible for us to begin to get s good Idea of

how such energy can be sared in houses like yours across the United States

by ootlaun we etherization, and how much that weatherlzatlon would cost. Specifically, we know the following things about your house: How much

fuel or energy It used In a typical year before the Demonstration and how

•uch It now uses In a typical year; and In the case of Sample houses, what

was done to weatherlze the house, how much that weatherlzatlon cost, and

what problems were encountered In weatherlzlng • house of this type In this

area.

This Information gives us a pretty good Idea ef how much energy savings

can be achieved by specific weatherlzatlon modifications. However, to get a

better Idea ef the energy savings figures, we also need some Information

about your household.

Other energy consumption studies have found that the way people use

their house has definite effects on the amount ef energy consumed. For

B-3
example, *one people prefer warmer temperatures than others, so they use wore

energy to keep the Inside air warmer In winter. Households with children tend

to use doors to the outside mutfi wore often than households with Just adults.

In cold weather this lets In mere cold air that needs to be warned and this

means more energy for heating.

It Is Important that the researchers at the National Bureau of Standards

know whether there have been changes that may affect the energy constmptlon

of your household during the time that we have been measuring your fuel use

from utility bills and meters. They also want to know about your feelings of

comfort In your house in cold weather.

The Information that you give us will be Identified by project house

lumber, so that the researchers can use It to better understand the energy

consumption data from your house. However, to protect your privacy, neither

your name or your street address will be used In connection with the data.

He hope that you are willing to spend 30 to 45 minutes answering some

questions about your household and your house. Tour cooperation Is needed

and will be very much appreciated.

[IF RESPONDENT IS NOT WILLING TO COOPERATE, PfJASE RECORD REASON GIVEN,]

(

'B-4
]. Are you the Hoad of Household here? ^

HO 1 2 1 YES

f. l!? NO, ASK:1 Hhat Is your relationship to

the Head of Household? _______

3. What year did you begin living In this house? ______

(GO OH TO fCXT PATE.1

B-5
1

1

Your house became a part of the CSA Optimum Weatherlzatlon Demonstration

In 1977

lOR IN] . Some of these Questions win refer back to that time and

others win refer to the recent past—that Is, to this past winter.

4. Who was living In this house In the Spring of 1977? fpjyL !N IMPORTATION

IN COLLIN 1 OP TABLE BELWo FILL SN SEX OP EADi OCCIPANT IN ODUM1 2,1

OCCUPANT

2 3 SEX 1977 ARE

Respondent

LEFT WHEN?

§ 6 ARRIVED WHEN? PPESENT ARE

What were their ages at that time—that Is, the Spring of 1977? tENTTR

IN COLLTH 3 OF THE TABLE,]

If any of these people are no longer living here, please tell me which

ones, end when they left the household. femER INFORMATION IN CDLILN 4.]

If any people have been edded to the household sines Spring 1977, please

t*n ae **o they are. feiTER INFORMATION IN OOLUfN 1, ABO^E.l for these new mergers of the household, please tell ae their Sex, When they became

members ©f the household, and their present Age. fefTER INFORMATION IN CSLLMC 2* 5* AND 6 OF TVE TABLEol

(go on to next pace.]

B-6
As I said earlier, some of these questions refer back to the winter

tine 1 or 2 years aoo. The researchers understand that low people can ore easily remember their experiences of several years back than others.

If you feel unsure about the answers to any of the questions that I ask

you, please feel free to tell m that you do not recall the Information.

5.

In the winter of 1976-77, Just before your house became a cart of the

CSA Optimum Weatherlzatlon Demonstration, was there usually someone In the

house during the daytime on weekdays?

jtesJD ho rru^ To n. 7

6.

Cl F YES, ASK:1 He* The person or were the peonle usually In the house

ALL DAyO or, WHAT PART Of THE DAY

7. Has the weekday daytime use of the house In winter changed since that

t1,Be TE^m NO £0—* po TO Q, 9

8. [i p YES, ASK:] How and has It changed? _______________

9.

Were there tines In the aast 3 years when you «*re away and the house

was unoccuoled for a week or more at a time?

JLilD

10.

Ilf YE3, ASK:1 When were those times?

NO rri— GO 7D 0, 11

(mxr page)

YEAR MONTH FOR HOW LONG?

B-7
I

1

11. Docs your house hare a thermostat that controls the main heater or

furnace? YE$JT| MO [TV" TO Q. 22 (PATE ©

{QUESTIONS TOR MOSES HAVING TVCRKSTATSl!

12. Is the thermostat generally at the same temperature setting each day

In winter? YE S 171 MO fiV» m to c. 1ft

13. Has the daytime thermostat setting you use been dtsnged since the

beginning of winter 1976? ^VES fTI MO jTTV-^ra f© 0, lft

Ijf YES, ASK;] W»en was that? MHat dnenoe?

MONTH YEAR

14. Back in the winter of 1976-77, was the thermostat usually set differently

•t night? YE S [71 MO f7T~»flp TO © s 15 CANNOT RECALL 0

[|F YES, ASK;] Hew different? HISHER 0 LOWER 0

tew much? dE) f@ c0 r0 lo-E

15. [ IF ThE MOUSE WAS USUALLY jfOCaJPIB) DURING AT LEAST PART OF TSC DA¥—

q, 5, PAGE 5 #®ON€“”ASKsl Mas the thermostat usually turned down when

no ©ne was at home during the day? YES fTI MO fTI

16. Mow please think ahout times of unusually cold weather hack In 1976-77.

At such times. In comparison with usual winter weather, was the thermostat

usually set L&O fTI HIGHER fj~l THE SAME 0

[if LOWER or HI (HER, ask;] About how much?

r 0 4* 0 V E «® DO 10® GQ DO MOT RECALL 0

B~8
17. Ourlnq this past winter, was the thermostat usually set differently at

night than during the daytime? YES IT] WO [T]—so TO Q, 13

llFYES, ASK:1 Mow different? HIGHER ID LOWER m

How much? 2* 0 ** ID 6* Q 8* J]Q 10* ID

C lF TVE HOUSE WAS USUALLY INOCClPIED DICING AT LEAST PART OF TVC DAY THIS

PAST WIOTER (Q. 5, 7—PAGE 5 BO'*.), ASK:] How about this past winter—

was the thermostat usually turned down when no one was at home durlnq the

day? YES £T) HO 171

19.

What about particularly cold spells this past winter—was the thermostat

usually set LOWER ID THE SAME ID HIGHER ID than during usual

winter weather.

20. So, the thermostat settings usually used this oast winter were

DAYTIME *F HIGHTTIhE; SAME AS DAYTIME Joi] fop] *F

21. Does your house have a clock thermostat to control the furnace or heater?

YES m HO B—- GO TO Oi 24 (PAGE 9)

I I F YES, ASK:) When was the clock thermostat Installed?

MONTH TEAR CANNOT RECALL ID

Ha* you chanoed the dqy or nloht settlnos since the

clock thermostat was Installed? YE S 1 1 1 HO |T1— GO TO 0. 24

(PAGE 9)

IlF YES^ ASK:1 Hhen was that? What change?

MONTH YEAR

Inov go to q, 24 (page 9).]

B-9
{questions tor houses WITHOUT TVERMOSTATS:]

22. (IP TVC HOUSE WAS USUALLY UNOCCUPIED OLRIMP AT LEAST PACT OP THE DA* IN WINTER 1976-77 (a, 5—PAGE 5 ABOVE), ask:] 8*ck In the Winter of 1976-77,

was the beater or furnace dually turned off when no one was at home In the

daytime: YES j7] WO [71

23. (IF THE HOUSE WAS USUALLY INOCO.FIED DUPING AT LEAST PART ©p THE DAY THIS PAST WINTER (O. 5 A?© 7“”PAfE 5 ABOYE), ASK:1 How about this oast winter—was the heater or furnace usually turned off *rf>en no one was at home In the daytime? YES ID NO 0

(GO ON TO I EXT PAGE.l

B-10
24. The next several questions have to do with how comfortable your house feels In winter, lie realize thet wintertime comfort In • house Is effected by many things—such as how severe the winter weather Is, the thermostat

setting, how efficiently the heating system Is ooeratlnn, how warmly we •re dressed, end how physically active we »re In the house. The researchers would like to know whether you have noticed any change In the wintertime

comfort of your house over the last three winters—that Is, since about the time your house became a part of the Ueatherlzatlon Demonstration? jtesJT] ho [7}->gc TO a. 25 (page ID

tlF YES, haw: feSPONDEWT CARD LABELLED "CHANGE IN HOUSE CHARACTERISTICS OVER

THE Past Three Winters*', AND SAV:] This cart* lists some characteristics of

• house that may he related to eonfort. Each one has a scale fron 1 to 7. Would you think about the chanoe In your feelings of comfort In your house over the past three years, end tell me which ninber shows how much vou feel each characteristic has chanoed. If you #eel a characteristic has not changed at all, use the nirfcer 4". If you feel the characteristic Is not related to comfort, please tell me that. [WAIT—+WRK "X" OVER THE PROPER NLf£ERS ON THE f€XT PATE,]

B-ll
Change In house d^erecteHstles over the pest three winters:

«80 MOT RELATED

MUCH Q4ANCE MUCH TO COHORT

COOLER 1 t 3 4 5 € 7 MARMER 181

WORE HUMID 12 3 4 5 6 7 LBS HUMID fH

WORE CRAFTY 12 3 4 5 6 7 LESS BRAFTY ffil

MORE UNIFORM

TEMPERATURES

LESS U'JIFOOM , 12 3 4 5 6 7 TEMPERATURES fg|

B-12
25. (POR SA’TIE HOUSES, Otty. ASK:) you feel that weatherlmien work

done on your house Is In any way related to any change In the comfort of

the house In winter? JfES 1 1 I MO fFT— rq TD 0, 26

ljp YES, ASK:) I" *»«t way?

25. (pcr ALL HOUSES, SAY:) for the next several questions I would like you

to think about your feelings of comfort this past winter. First, what Is

your recollection of the weather this past winter? Would you say It was

MUCH COLDER THAN NORMAL E

SOMEWHAT COLDER THAN NORMAL PH

ABOUT NORMAL E

SOMEWHAT MILDER THAN NORMAL [7] MUCH MILDER THAN NORMAL E

27. Now I would like you to tell « how It felt In your house this past

winter. iHAJ© %SPONEBfT CARD WITH RATING SCALES, WITH CWfORT/DISOTORT

SCALE PACING UP,) This Is for describing your feellnos o

* the comfort

of a room or a place In a room. For exannle. If you felt that a room was

Moderately Comfortable In the winter, you would rate It C4. tPALBE.)

How comfortable, overall, would you say your house was this past wlnter--

what C-nunt>er best describes your overall feelings of comfort In the house?

C

loo ON TO NEXT PAPE.)

B-13
&IAND %S®OSfiTENr TV£ FLOOR PLAN LABELLED ^HIS FAST '/MTER'J

28. Now please look «t the [as APPROPRIATE! HRST

SECOND or THIRD FLOOR PLAN of your house

libelled “This Past Winter". D©®$ that plan correctly shew all ©f the

rooms ®m that fleer ©f your house?

FIRST FLOOR: NoJY] YES FT— ® lO Q. 2

SECOND FLOOR: JNQ FT! YES fT}“^ao T© 29

THIRD FLOOR; NO [71 YES fT[“3»0O TO Q, 29

[IF ND, SAY:] TH®n Please draw In any'wfsslng moms,

[WAIT,]

29. Do you usually keep any of these rooms closed off and not used In winter?

FIRST FLOOR: YESJ3 no ITT—-* no to o e D

SECOND FLOOR: TE S^ fTl NO FT—»>

m

TO a. D

THIRD FLOOR; YES m TO 0, 13

[IF YES* SAY:1 Please write "NO® In each ©f the usually closed-off rooms.

[WAIT,] Would y©u tell me why each Is unused?

ROOM WHY UNUSED

OF ALL FD9fS ON A FLOOR ARE IITJBED IN WHITER, 00 TO Q, 37 (PAffi ]5)]
30. Now I want you to think about times when family mentors were at home

during the daytime this pest winter, and about the rooms that were generally

used daytimes. Please draw a line or lines around these rooms on the plan.

Nait.1

31. Do you have some recollections of how comfortable the various rooms In

your house felt this past winter?

Y£sJ3 EH> 60 TD Q, 30 (PtfE 16)

32. Did you notice feelings of different temperatures In different rooms of

your house this past winter? YES

33. You probably have noticed that we have been taking many temperature

readings throughout your house each month—that Is the Temperature

Stratification Test described In the yellow booklet about the Demonstration.

[HOLD IP CDPY op *T* IfcATHERIZATION STRATI ON feSEARGI PROGRAM ATID YOU*.]

The researchers at the National Bureau of Standards would like to know

how comfortable you feel In the different rooms of your house In winter,

*o that they can determine how your comfort 4s affected by tfie varying

temperatures throughout the house.

He would like you to record your 1ac>ress1ons of the comfort of the various

rooms of your house this past winter on the floor plan. Think for a

awrent about each room. If you have a clear recollection of how comfortable

It usually felt, look at the COMFOKT/DISCOMFORT RATING SCALE, see what

C-mrtor best represents your feeling ebout the room, and write the

C-nunber right on the plan In that room. CWAIT,1

B-15
34. H eve y®u rated any ©f the rows £3 @r less?

FIRST aOW: VEsjm MO [Q—

i

gq TO Q, 35

SECOND FLOOR: mill MO ITT TO Q, 35

THIRD aOORsJfES |T| MO (7}-»>eo TO 5

[IF YES* SAY:] Piets® describe what Is uncomfortable about each ©f

the room you have rated £3 ©r less:

ROOM WAT IS UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT |T

35. In the rows for which y©u have siven eemfert ratings* ®re there any

particular pieces that, during nemal winter rather, felt rather more

uncomfortable than yeur overall comfort rating for that row:

FIRST FLOOR: YEsJT] MO TO ©9 5 OCXT PA^£>

SECOND FLOOR; YE S |T1 MO |TV-».m TO Q. IB

THIRD aOOR ^YES IT! MO ITV^m sn q. ?>

[IF YES* SAY;] Please write C-nunt>er ratings for those places m the

plan. If there Is not spec® m the plan Hobt et a particular place for

the C->nu7ffcer,. draw ® laree dot at the place ©n the ©Ian, and write the

C»nuf*er just outside the pl@n close to the dot. Please draw circles

around these C®nurfeers to Identify them to the researchers as representing

particularly wnesmfertafele places. fWAIlJ

B-16
36. How please turn over the card and look at the MAR**/ COLO RATING SCALE.

This Is used to describe how warm or cold a place feels. Tor exanple, If

you felt a room was Slightly Cool, you would use T3 to describe It. (PAUSE.

1

How, wherever you can recall how the temperature of a room ©r place In a

room felt last winter, write beside the C«nuwber on the floor plan the

T- number that best describes how the temperature ©f that place feels In

winter. Remember that C-nunbers with circles around them represent

particularly uncomfortable places. If you can recall how the temperature

felt at any of those places, write the appropriate T-nurfcer beside the

C-nunt>er and draw a circle around It. fr»AIT,l

Ilf T>£ HOUSE HAS AN OCCUPIED SECOND (or THIRD) RJDOR, SAY;] How I would

like you to record the same kind of ratings for ary rooms ©n the second

(or third] floor In which family members spent any appreciable amount of

time daytimes this past winter. (go BACK TO Q, 28 (PAPE 12)]

(OTVCRWISE, 00 ON TO NEXT QUESTION, BELOW,]

37. To help the researchers In analysing the Comfort Ratings you have given

for the various rooms In your house, would you say how sure you feel about

those ratings?

VERY SURE MODERATELY SURE 0 SOMEWHAT UNSURE 0 UNSURE 0

38. How about the Temperature Retings—how sure do you feel about them?

VERY SURE 0 MODERATELY SURE 0 SOfCWHAT UNSURE 0 UNSURE 0

B-17
39. Is there anythine you would like to add about the comfort of your house

this past winter?

faOR CONTROL HD<JBES* SAY;] For the otxt several ©uestlons I want you to

try to think back to winter time the year before this—that Is, the period

of about November 1978 to February 1979. [® to © 0 ^1]

AO. (tor SAMPLE HOUSES, ASK;] £®« you recall when the Demonstration

weatherlzatlon work—such as caulking, weatherstrlBofre, Insulatlno—was

started on your house? JE3 m_jo m

[|F YES,, ask;] When «e? that; YEAR MONTH

teWTIfAJE ,] For the next several questions I want you t© try to think

back to winter time before y@ur house was weatherlsed.

[IF NO BATE GIVEN ABO'-E, SAY;] That Is, the early pert of winter 1978-79

(OR]

41. For ©emparlson, the researchers would like to know how you felt about

the comfort of your house back then. First, tdiat Is your recollection ©f

the weather at that time—would you say It was

MUCH COLDER THAW NORMAL 0

SWEWHAT COLDER THAN NORMAL m

ABOUT NORMAL E

SOMEWHAT MILDER THAW NORMAL m

MUCH MILDER THAN NORMAL m

DO NOT RECALL m

B-18
42. Now please look it the COMFORT/DISCOHFORT RATING SCALE. Mow comfortable,

overall, would you tay your house wes hack at this earlier tine we are now

thinking about? What C-nirber would best describe your overall feel Inns

of comfort In winter back then? €

43. Please turn over the sheet with the floor diagram on It, and look at

the (AS APPROPRIATE] FIRST SECOND or THIRD FLOOR PLAN of your house labelled "Winter 1978-79“.

>Does that plan correctly show all of the rooms on that floor ©f your house

as they were back In 1978-79?

FIRST FLOOR: NoJTi YES QJ—^00 TO Q. 44

SECOND FLOOR: NoJT] TES TO Q. 44

THIRD FLOQR

j

HO IT] TES FTl— rq TO ", 44

llR ND, SAY;] Then please draw In any corrections needed on this plan.[ WATT,]

44. Old you usually keep any of these rooms closed off and not used In

winter back In the earlier time ?

FIRST FLOOR: YEsJY] !»0 {TJ—VfiO TO Q, 46

SECOND FLOOR: YES 1TI MO 17]— TO 0, 45

THIRD FLOOR: YES 171 MO GO TO ^6

llF YES, SAY.*] Then please write "NO" In each of the rooms that were

usually closed off In winter. &(AIT,] Mould you tell me

why each was unused?

POOH WHY WUSED

B-19
(IF ALL RDO,’S ON A FLOOR WEHE IMBED IN WINTER §0 TO 0, 51 (PATE 20)1

45. Itew I want you to think about times when family members were at home

during the daytime back at this earlier time, ®«d about the rooms that «^re

generally used daytimes. Please draw a line or lines around these rooms on

the plan. (WAIlJ

*6. The researchers realiee that It ray be hard for you to remen&er your

Impressions from that long aoo. for the next several ernes tlens about your

comfort feelings beck In the earlier winter tin®, please Just give your

best recollection, ©r say If you cannot recall at all. Be you recall

noticing different feelings of comfort In different rooms of your house back

47. Then we would like you to feeerd your recollections of the feelings of

®mfert ©f the various worn of your house at this earlier tin®. Do It

Just as you did before. Think for e moment about how each room felt In

winter back at the earlier time. If you have a clear recollection ©f how

comfortable It usually felt, look at the COMFORT/DISCOMFORT RATING SCALE,

see what C-nimber best represents your recollection of your feeling In

that room, and write the e-rtunfeer right ©n the plan In that room. (WAIT,!

[Tf€N «0 ON TO fCXT PAfiE.l

at the earlier winter time?

B-20
4B. Nave you rated any of the rooms C3 or 1ess7

FIRST FLOOR: YEsJTl NO 1T[—». QD TO 0, ^0

SECOND FLOOR: YES [T1 NO fTh—> «o TO 0 8 43

THIRD FLOOR: YES |T1 NO TD 0, *6

IlF YES, SAY:1 Please describe what was uncomfortable about each of

the rooms you have rated C3 or less.

ROOM WHAT WAS UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT IT

49. In the rooms for which you have o1«n comfort ratines, were there any

particular places that, during normal winter weather, felt rather more uncan fortable than your overall comfort rating for that room:

FIRST FLOOR: YESJT\ NO —ro OH TO <5, 50 OCXT PATE)

SECOND FLOOR: YES 171 NO [Tj-^ro ON TO 0. 50

THIRD FLOPP IES 171 NO ON TO 0, S)

IlF YES, SAY:] Please write C-mr6er ratines for those places on the

plan as you did before. Draw circles around these sneelal C-nurber ratines,

and nlace then outside the plan with a dot Inside at the place. If necessary.

[WAIT—THEN GO ON TO »EXT PACE.]

B-21
53. Now please turn ©ver the card and look at the MARK/ COLD RATING SCALE.

Wherever you ear. recall hw the tempera ture of a room ©r place In a roan

felt at the earlier winter time „ write beside the C-nus&er on the floor elan

the T«ntfi4>er that best describes hw the temperature ©f that place felt In

winter. Again remeistier that &»nus*foers with circles around them represent

particularly uncomfortable places. If y©u can recall h@w the temperature

felt at any ©f these plaees, write the appropriate T-nurtser beside the

C-number and drew a circle around It. [WAIT,]

[IF TIC HOUSE HAS AN OCOPIED SECSfffl (OR THIRD) FLOOR, SA*sl ^ow I would

like you to record retinas for any rows ©n the second [or third] floor In

which family merrfeers spent any appreciable amount of time daytimes back In

the earlier winter, Please look it the [as Af^TO^IATEl FIRST SECOND

©r THIRD a©OR FLAN

of your house labelled “Winter 1978- 7§ a

„ f® back TO FART OF Q, 43

Cfa£e 17)1

51. Mow sure do you feel Aout ©se Confer! Ratings you have given for the

winter time In 1978 or 1979?

WRY SURE 0 MODERATELY SURE 0 SOMEWHAT UNSURE 0 UNSURE 0

52. Mow about She Temperature Ratings <=~h®w sure do y©u feel ^beut them:

VERY SURE m MODERATELY SURE 0 SOMEWHAT mSl^E 0 UNSURE 0

53. Is there anything you would like to add about the e@mf©rt of your house

back In the earlier winter time?

B-22
54. How Important would you My the wintertime comfort of your house Is

to you?

VERY IMPORTANT MODERATELY IMPORTANT e SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT E

HOT IMPORTANT m

55. The clothing we wear strongly effects how warm or cool we feel. Please

think for a moment about the clothes you usually wore at home this past

winter. IWAITj Now Try to recall the clothes you usually wore at home

back In the winter of Comparing the clothes you usually wore

at those two times, would you say that, during this past winter, you

usually wore

MORE OR HEAVIER CLOTHING e

ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF CLOTHING £T]

LESS OR LIGHTER CLOTHING [7]

DO NOT KNOW e

56. During this past winter how often did you wear a sweater or other

"extra* wrap In the house during daytimes?

ALL THE TIME m usually e SOMETIMES e RARELY E NEVER E

57. What about during the evenings—how often did you wear a sweater or

other "extra" wrap this past winter?

ALL THE TIKE E USUALLY E SOMETIMES E RARELY E NEVER E

58. During this past winter were there any ways, other than adjustlno the

heater setting or the clothing you wore, that you used to get warm or keeo warm—like, for example, doing exercises, or rubbing your hands together?

YES [TJ HO [0—GO TO 0. 99

B-23
IlF YES, SAY:] You do not need to answer this, but If you would care

to tell ee «#*at those ways ©f getting warn @r keeping we nr were, the

researchers would be Interested to know:

59. Now please think back to the winter time In . How ©fttn did you

wear a sweater ©r other "extra® wrap In the house daytimes back then?

ALL THE TIME USUALLY m SOMETIMES G2 RARELY 0 NEVER ED

60. How about during the evenings back then?

All THE TIME USUALLY ED SOMETIMES m RARELY 0 NEVER 0

61. During the earlier winter tine, were there any ways, other than adjusting

the heater setting or the clothes you were, that you used to get warm or

keep warn?

YE S m NO [71—» m TO o, 62

[jF YES, SAY:] Again, you do net need t© answer this, but If you care te

tell me what those ways were, I will record then:

62. Does your house he* a flreplsae or wood bunting stove?

fireplace to o, Sf\ (ror pace)

WOOD STOVE RO TO Q, 63

w to q, G5 tea page)

63. When did you get the wood stove? TEAR TOOTH _

B-24
€4. How often do you have a fire In the fireplace or wood stove during cold

weather?

EVERY MY £7] SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK £7} ONCE A WEEK S LESS OFTEN

65. Do you usually leave any windows ©Ben, even • crack, for fresh air In

cold weather? YE S 171 HO [7]

[IF YES, ask:] About how many? _____

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. We reallv

aopreclate your cooperation.

time IS HOW

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY

[INTERVID€R: BERBER TO PICK UP:

3- PLOOP PLAN S*ET;

2- card wrm rating scales;

3- card with 'Change in House Characteristics ,,,,*]

B-25
COTFORT/DiSCOffORT RATING SCALE

C5t—VERY COMFORT ABLE

C4- —MODERATELY CO-OPT ABLE

C3

(2

-SLIGHTLY uncomfortable

jwcomfortable

Cl-1”VERY UNCOMFORTABLE

W/COLD CTBPERATURE) RATING SCALE

T7-ir-HOT

T6 * ~ WARM

15- - SLIWTLY WARM

T4- — HEUTFAL? NEITHER WAR*' NOR COLD

13- — SLIGHTLY COOL

12 - — cool

Tl-L-colD

B-26
APPENDIX C

Sample of Output of Program QUSTEDIT

C-l
CSA

Uoothorizat

ion

DofwrwtroS

ion

OutsHonnoIr*'

&olo fi©V

g

fcOu 9

CSS

(A£ ©

CJ

© > ^ i © &a 6— cd CD© tfi im c c

IS*

©i §

<?

%d : • ffiweww 1 K n 1 :a

L. * & : : 2 2 : z I

-j o <r <t ^ on

a 8 © o O' o <S oQ ID ® K. ® © N 0 fin an — cv — I [ 

inam

©

® eo

w cd • uj »® ffl ffl ffi u

?sea« zzzzz

_> 8 ® ffl ffl as

mm LU

W ffi

©© « > - NN1 a

Gja 1

C-2

Rocol

loot

ion

of

wlntor

uvathori (

’4*<C0L0ER- ,6,

-MILDER> ,

8')

OVERALL

*C

1979/00: 7

(*2*-N0T

RECALL; 5

Eorllor

ulntwi 4

*9"»NA) 3

Rocati

footings

of:

COMFORT: I

TEMPERATURE: 2
LAST

UIHTER

EARLIER

UINTER K O

itO • u CM I • z w O

f

0

c^- rTJTJO — CD

I- — —

« L

L •• o o

ri w- CM CM CM U UJ - - c n E

• cl c o o» o

•• 3 o c o

n * SC ©»

ft 1 z o 9\ *• 8 U 3 A ft O E •• - 0 if) i 3 - O —

mfo R Q. MV .. £

cr^ju w> L f i

O •• I- E UT) O O

o p c <n c 6 dw 5 — c o

CL 3 •O fc8 i =

O O O L — O O O

U. CL CL CL

L

O

CL * •»* CL • C

IL > 3 o a •• IP o L

V) > CD tt WINuj cn o aw-u

E

CD£

L

O CM fO

CJS

n

3 —

C3

£ S

C.D

IP

if)

z i

CL

> v

L©

ro

c_>

L CD O

rou

*©o

in —

U CM

•• d

L CL ~

OcH-forowrororororofo eoX 3

LCJfopofnrorororororo

® « ~

-o b 5

IP C3

A

b

roo

L •• 2 E

C O — o 3 C. m o o

3KVOU>VDVDLO«>»I>iO<JD

ooinninininininioin

- TJ £ s a c A 3

g

ECLCL»-~ — CMCMK)^

O Jftk3QDflD3CDCr o Q — — — ~*CM(MCMCMCM

C-3

'ENTER*

YEAR:

1977
NBS-H4A (rev- 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date NBSIR 31-2335 September 1931

Effects of Home Weatherization on Occupant Comfort: First Report of a Field Study

5. AUTHOR(S)

Roy E. Clark

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP

)

Community Services Administration

1200 19th Street N.W.

Washington, D.C.

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

This study reports preliminary examination of data testing the hypothesis that, when

existing residences are treated with weatherization retrofitting measures intended

primarily to save fuel, house occupants are likely to report improvement in wintertime comfort. Data were obtained through questionnaire-guided interviews with

individuals in 108 experimental houses and 37 control houses. These houses, at nine

sites representing a range of U. S. climates, were part of a three-year National

Weatherization Demonstration, sponsored by the Community Services Administration and

planned and managed by researchers at the Center for Building Technology of the

National Bureau of Standards, The experimental houses had been weatherized to determine how much their fuel usage could be reduced by cost-effective retrofitting. The

control houses had not been weatherized in the demonstration. Interview topics

included: thermostat setting patterns, impressions of comparative comfort, amounts of

clothing worn, and specific comfort and temperature ratings for the house as a whole

and for individual rooms in the house. Preliminary examination of the data has

focussed on: 1) a composite "comfort change" index, comprised of indicators derived

from thermostat setting practices in unusually cold weather, impressions of change

in comfort-related attributes of the indoor environment, amounts of clothing worn in

winter, and comfort ratings, 2) the specific comfort ratings, and 3) the temperature

ratings. The results presented offer strong indications of support for the hypothesis , 12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Community Services Administration; field study; occupant comfort; Optimal Weatherization Demonstration; thermal comfort; thermostat setting practices; weatherization;

wp.athpri7..it-inn am

13. AVAILABILITY

[^] Uni i ml ted

1 | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

, ~] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

[j^] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

83

15. Price

$9.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80