## 1 Introduction
[25], have demonstrated its utility and validity. In most outdoor thermal comfort studies, a purely physiological model has been used, involving a mathematical model of the thermoregulatory system employed for calculating the thermal comfort conditions, whereas subjective responses have not been considered [26]. This paper centers the study on comparing the objective evaluation of outdoor comfort and subjective perception. Moreover, even when both approaches were combined, many studies have demonstrated that comfort scales are different from one area to another. In their work, [PERSON] et al. [27] have made an international comparison of three studies performed in similar conditions respectively in Hungyr, Sweden, and Japan. One of the results is that Japanese participants found similar thermal conditions (the comfortable ones according to the PET) much warmer than the Hungarians and Swedes. Although the results of this paper show only cold zones, it is necessary to analyze the thermal resilience of the habitants in hot zones. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [28] have conducted three studies where they compared five thermal comfort models with subjective responses from inhabitants of the Mendoza Metropolitan Area (AMM). They have found that all evaluated models present a percentage of predictive success under 25%. As also recommended by [PERSON] et al. [29], all these studies indicate the need for calibrating the Outdoor Thermal Comfort (OTC) models locally through mixed-method approaches, in which subjective evaluations of a given site's thermal condition are concurrently compared with objective meteorological measurements needed to compute a thermal index. On the other hand, [PERSON] et al. ([PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], & [PERSON], 2009a, 2009b) analyzed the possibility of improving the COMFA model (COMfortFormulaA)application for physical activity subjects. They concluded the necessity to compare subjective thermal sensation in outdoor space and objective by applying the COMFA model in different world regions. There are many works in this line for interior spaces [30], but in the case of exteriors, the number of publications is scarcer. However, the literature review shows the need for work that quantifies and validates this extension of the range of acceptance of outdoor comfort. [PERSON] et al. [30] study people's capacity for thermal adaptation. They conclude on the relevance of this capacity that would significantly extend the acceptance range. [PERSON] et al. [31] are a reference for this work. The authors conduct a comprehensive study on people's ability to adapt. To do this, they made a detailed experimental campaign with a sample of users trained for the experiment. The results are interesting, but it is necessary to expand the experimental sample to citizens in real conditions of the use of public spaces in cities. [PERSON] et al. [16] analyze the literature and conclude that the PET indicator can expand its range from 22 to 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C. It would be necessary to know the conditions that would allow this expansion and validate them. The work proposed here aims to quantify the expansion of this range and generate sufficient knowledge about under what conditions it occurs. On the other hand, [PERSON] et al. [20] make a complete review of less warm climatic zones in summer than those of the Mediterranean, but with an important conclusion: the extension of the comfort band generates great possibilities in the future to design strategies to improve the habitability of cities. Several studies have intended to develop new methodologies to define outdoor thermal models for a specific space. [PERSON] et al. [32] did it in Taiwan, [PERSON], and [PERSON] in Singapore [29], and [PERSON] et al. in Italy, for example [33]. However, they conclude that the best option would be to analyze how to modify the extended indicators in the scientific community (PET, COMFA... ) depending on the occupants of each region of the world [34]. Moreover, [PERSON] et al.