# Explainable Post-Occupancy Evaluation Using a Humanoid Robot
## 4 Case Study  
An office located in the National Research Council building in Palermo (38 deg09'55.4'' N, 13 deg18'34.9'' E) was considered as a case study to test the proposed approach to improve the comfort conditions. Figure 2 shows the Google view of the building. The choice of the office was based on the feedback of some workers unsatisfied with their environmental conditions. The office is generally occupied by two workers on different days and different hours of the day. For this reason, in this study, only one worker was selected to conduct the questionnaire. The room selected as a case study (Figure 3) is characterized by an area of 21.41 m\({}^{2}\) (6.15 \(\times\) 3.50 m). It includes some furniture: a table with four workstations, two book cabinets close to the door, and a small cabinet on a wall. On the shorter wall, there is a window 1 m from the floor, and it is 2.3 m large.  
The real image of the office under study is shown in Figure 4. The large window is equipped with white drapes, whose transmission factor is equal to 0.70. It is exposed to 285 deg west. The office is equipped with: a big painted wooden desk (\(r=0.60\) where \(r\) is the reflection coefficient) with a small portion painted black located in the middle of the room; two painted wood cabinets (\(r=0.60\)) equipped with glass doors (\(r=0.70\)), located almost symmetrically with respect to the door; a small painted wood cabinet (\(r=0.60\)) at the end of the opposite wall; and four chairs made of blue and black material (\(r=0.20\)). The door of the room is made of steel painted blue (\(r=0.20\)). The work-plane of the participant for the test is equipped with two desktop PCs with three big monitors. Moreover, usually, a laptop is positioned under the first monitor.  
As already mentioned, in this study, four different environmental parameters are taken into consideration: sound level, temperature, humidity, and illuminance. To check the distribution of the measures in the office, a measurement campaign was carried out at different points. Notably, as concerns the illuminance, the measures were retrieved on a regular grid of points placed on the work-plane as a one-off condition to verify the implementation of the furniture and lighting sources. It should be remarked that in the operating conditions, a single validation point was used.  
Regarding the illuminance results, in general, it is noted that the room shows some critical aspects tied to the position and exposition of the window. Indeed, the distribution of the illuminance exhibited high variations among the measurement points. Conversely, temperature and humidity showed more homogeneous values. As was confirmed by the standard deviation of the illuminance (see Table 4), there was a relevant difference between the minimum and the maximum value of the illuminance measures. On the contrary, the standard deviation of the temperature was 0.6, and the standard deviation of the humidity was 1.2. The possibility to gather values close to the user may outperform the limitations of the traditional position of the instrument. Looking at the measures of the lighting  
Figure 3: Floor plan of the room under study.  
Figure 2: Google view of the National Research Council building in Palermo.  
contribution in Table 4, it is possible to see that the values suggested by the standard EN12464 were not achieved on the whole work-plane. Such measurements refer only to the contribution of daylight. It was noted that artificial light did not improve the illuminance during the daylight hours.