Next Article in Journal
Residual Stress and Fatigue Strength Analysis of Stiffener Welds of Steel-Plate Composite Girder Bridge Considering Welding Sequence
Previous Article in Journal
Exploration on Effects of Tinted Glazing on Outdoor Views and Visual Experience Inside Hotel
Previous Article in Special Issue
Data-Driven Smart Avatar for Thermal Comfort Evaluation in Chile
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/buildings14061800
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating the Role of Thermal Comfort Perception on Negotiating Heritage Conservation and Energy Efficiency Decisions through System Dynamics

by
Merve Karabeyeser Bakan
1,*,
Kalliopi Fouseki
1 and
Hector Altamirano
2
1
Institute for Sustainable Heritage, The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK
2
Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(6), 1800; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061800
Submission received: 15 April 2024 / Revised: 5 June 2024 / Accepted: 9 June 2024 / Published: 14 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Indoor Comfort in Residential Buildings: Research on Energy Efficiency and Thermal Perception)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The building sector, which is responsible for a significant amount of total global energy consumption, provides substantial opportunities for energy efficiency studies. In the context of historic and traditional buildings, this matter becomes more crucial, as energy efficiency is more complex and challenging. The complexity partly derives from the multiple and diverse values with which the buildings are associated. These values are dynamic. In this paper, we chose historic houses in Gaziantep as our focal point. They provide an indicative example of houses with architectural features that help residents deal with the adverse effects of the hot climate. These specific features are significant for the users not only in terms of thermal comfort but also in terms of heritage values. The value that users attribute to the neighbourhood and their attitude towards buildings change over time. It is seen that thermal comfort plays a key role in energy efficiency and heritage conservation. Hence, understanding the role of thermal comfort perceptions and the ways in which they dictate certain energy efficiency and heritage conservation actions is critical. In this context, this paper addresses these dynamic, complex, and changing interrelationships over time. Drawing upon the dynamic analysis of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with three dwellings in Gaziantep’s Bey neighbourhood, we will discuss how residents of historic houses perceive thermal comfort and how they negotiate and prioritise energy efficiency and heritage conservation.

1. Introduction

Building operations account for about 30–40% of the total global energy consumption. The building sector’s energy consumption in 2022 increased by 1% compared to the previous year [1]. Historic buildings represent a considerable percentage of the existing building stock, comprising 25% in Europe [2] and 12.6% in Türkiye (buildings constructed before 1980) [3]. Among these historical buildings in Türkiye, residential buildings constitute 61.69% [4]. In recent years, studies on energy efficiency, thermal comfort, and historic buildings have become increasingly crucial [5,6], especially in light of the adverse effects of environmental problems such as climate change, decreasing resources [7,8,9], and socio-cultural demands [10].
Energy efficiency interventions in historic buildings are crucial for ensuring their continued use by meeting users’ current needs, improving thermal comfort conditions, and preserving their heritage value [11]. While it is suggested that energy efficiency measures conflict with the heritage value of historic buildings [12,13], research has shown that energy efficiency and thermal comfort can be achieved without compromising heritage value [12,14,15]. The main challenge is achieving an appropriate balance between conserving historic values that cannot be renewed and energy efficiency [16]. Another challenge is the restrictions on the protection of historic buildings and their exclusion from current energy efficiency practices [17]. Before making energy efficiency interventions, it is essential to understand the values of historic buildings [6]. This requires balancing social and climate objectives for energy efficiency [13,18].
European standards such as EN 16883 [19] and historic organisations like Historic England [20] have developed guidelines for balancing energy efficiency and heritage conservation. However, these guides do not always reach the people living in the buildings [21]. Furthermore, these guidelines frequently concentrate on adapting technology to heritage buildings without properly considering heritage values [22] and social practices [23]. Most of the research on energy efficiency in historic buildings has focused on technical solutions. Because of that, “heritage values” reflect the perspectives of heritage professionals rather than the attitudes of users [24,25].
For a while, policies and experts overlooked the effect of occupants on the energy efficiency of historic buildings. However, it is recognised that occupant behaviour can significantly affect the effectiveness of energy-saving measures [20]. Recent research [13,18,26,27] has shown that user behaviour significantly impacts a building’s energy efficiency and thermal comfort. Understanding the building and its context, actively involving building users, owners, and stakeholders [20], and incorporating technology and expertise are essential steps towards increasing efficiency holistically [16].
The impact of thermal comfort on energy consumption stands out as one of the most critical parameters in the literature, receiving considerable attention compared to other energy-related topics [28,29]. The factors affecting thermal comfort are categorised as human, structural, and environmental, and it has been determined that human factors have the most significant effect on energy consumption [30,31]. Since people spend nearly 90% of their time indoors, thermal comfort is potentially one of the most determining factors influencing the quality of the indoor environment, thereby affecting their interactions and perceptions of buildings [32]. Also, the perception of thermal comfort affects the perceived comfort of other IEQ factors in the same direction [33].
There is no general solution for addressing energy efficiency and thermal comfort in historic buildings, as numerous factors come into play. These factors include climate, building envelope characteristics, building services and energy systems, operation and maintenance practices, occupant behaviour, and indoor environmental quality [34,35]. Moreover, the unique values attributed to buildings, along with social and economic factors, play significant roles [36]. In addition, occupants’ expectations and social-cultural attitudes significantly influence their perception of thermal comfort, while their past experiences shape their thermal comfort expectations [37]. For historic buildings, it is essential to develop differentiated energy renovation strategies that take into account the year of construction, heritage classification, and geographical diversity, recognising urban and rural differences [38].
Thravalou et al. state two main aspects crucial for achieving energy efficiency in conservation practices. These include understanding the building and its potential to identify design strategies and user behaviour [39]. Passive strategies significantly improve historic buildings’ indoor thermal comfort and energy efficiency while preserving heritage value. Due to their interactive nature and bioclimatic characteristics, historic buildings have a strong thermal correlation between the external and internal environments [40]. More specifically, in the context of Egypt [41], it has been indicated that preserving the heritage value of historic buildings can increase annual thermal comfort from 31.4% to 65.9% based on total hours, using proposed passive strategies suitable for hot climates. Zarei et al. analysed traditional houses in Iran and showed how the microclimate created by courtyards significantly increases users’ thermal comfort in hot and dry climates by protecting against excessive wind and shading in summer [42].
Furthermore, Anaç et al. discussed the main passive sustainable strategies for traditional dwellings in Gaziantep, including materials, façade features, orientation, environmental considerations, and courtyards, highlighting their significant effects on both cultural values and thermal comfort [43]. Also, Karabeyeser et al. stated that underground chambers in historic buildings have had a crucial role in terms of thermal comfort and preserving heritage value [44].
According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) report, the energy consumption of the building sector in 2022 decreased by 4% for heating and increased by 3% for cooling compared to the previous year [1]. This shows that passive strategies for cooling could be more effectively integrated into the system, especially in hot and dry climates. This parameter could help reduce energy consumption and ensure thermal comfort for historic buildings.
Sofia Murillo Camacho et al. have shown through a system dynamic analysis in the case of Mexico City that although occupants do not perceive the temperature of buildings as adequate, they prefer passive strategies against a potential loss in the value of buildings [22]. System dynamics is useful for understanding this dynamic and complex relationship between thermal comfort, energy efficiency, and heritage conservation decision-making processes. There is some, albeit limited, system-dynamic analysis of this interrelationship. For instance, Liaw et al. have examined the interrelationships of the factors affecting thermal comfort in social housing in Brazil with the system dynamics approach [45]. The effect of changing the window opening factor on thermal comfort was investigated with this method. In addition, Zimmermann et al. explored the socio-technical connections among heating systems, their functionality, and the thermal comfort of occupants through system dynamics [46]. In the context of heritage, Fouseki and Bobrova have developed a dynamic hypothesis on the change in cultural heritage values attributed to historic residential buildings over time by applying system dynamics in heritage management studies, showing that the value attributed to these buildings declines over time as thermal comfort becomes a priority [21].
This paper aims to advance our insights into how residents’ perceived thermal comfort in historic buildings influences their energy efficiency and heritage preservation decisions. We will do so by focusing on the heritage area of Gaziantep and using system dynamics as a method of analysis. Gaziantep Bey neighbourhood has a dynamic urban structure that has been transformed over time. In this multi-layered and dynamic structure, the system dynamics method will provide an understanding of the interrelationships of the relevant parameters in this complex process. System dynamics can be applied as a methodology to comprehend the interactions between components over time, showing the circumstances and reasons that initiate significant changes [47].
This study is conducted in a region where climate significantly influences traditional building design and will address the impact of a critical parameter, such as thermal comfort. Considering there is a tendency towards technical solutions at the individual building scale, this user-centred study has significant potential for a holistic approach to balance conservation and energy efficiency for historic buildings.

2. Materials and Methods

This study adopts system dynamics as a method of data analysis. System dynamics helps to understand complex systems, which consist of interacting and interrelated elements that form a whole for a purpose [48] and behaviour over time [49]. The system dynamics method is underpinned by systems thinking theory, which is an understanding of how various elements are related to each other and create a system [21]. This method establishes connections between the causal map and the data source and aids in systematically analysing the data [50]. Causal loop diagrams illustrate the interconnectedness of variables, demonstrating how alterations in one factor lead to subsequent changes in others [51].
Thermal comfort, energy efficiency, and heritage conservation are dynamic subjects; with building data, users are an essential source of information. One of the first international qualitative studies on this subject, Fouseki et al., stated that the interrelationships between senses, materials, competencies, space/environment, resources, time, and meanings are crucial to heritage conservation and are a social and cultural dynamic approach [52]. Therefore, to have a holistic view of a complex issue such as the thermal comfort, energy, and heritage conservation relationship, all variables and their relationships are examined using system dynamics.

2.1. Case Study: The Case of Gaziantep

The buildings in Bey neighbourhood were built in the 19th century in the Ottoman period and have had users from different religions, cultures, and ethnicities. This neighbourhood is one of the urban sites in Gaziantep and a significant landmark for the city (Figure 1). The city has a hot summer Mediterranean climate, with hot and dry summers and cool and snowy winters. The average lowest temperature is −0.6 °C in January, and the average highest temperature is 35.3 °C in July. The highest temperature recorded between 1940 and 2023 was 44.0 °C [53]. The average lowest relative humidity is 38% in July, and the average highest relative humidity is 74% in January [54].
Traditional Gaziantep Houses have specific features for energy efficiency on both the single building scale, such as top windows, shutters and lattices of windows, cellars and caves, and the urban scale. Historic neighbourhoods consist of organic and narrow streets in Gaziantep [55,56]. These specific features are significant in heritage value and help provide thermal comfort in hot climates in Gaziantep (Figure 2) [43,44].
Post-2003 legal regulations, called the period of change, have fundamentally changed the architectural conservation institution [57]. These legal regulations have also significantly impacted and transformed the Bey neighbourhood. In 2009, with the municipality’s initiatives, the neighbourhood, defined as ruined and neglected in the pre-2003 period, started to be improved, first with a street rehabilitation project and then with restoration projects. Focusing on the role of users’ thermal comfort in heritage conservation and energy efficiency decisions in this neighbourhood, whose transformation is still ongoing, will be a guiding study for conservation processes.

2.2. Data Collection

As a result of the urban and social transformations that the neighbourhood has undergone in recent years, the number of reused buildings has increased considerably. In contrast, the number of residential buildings has decreased significantly. While the population of Gaziantep is increasing, the population of Bey neighbourhood is decreasing yearly. The neighbourhood’s population, which was 1220 in 2016, was reduced to 936 in 2020 [58]. Therefore, in order to explore the relationship between this transformation and thermal comfort, data collection was conducted in July and August 2022. During the first stage, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the occupants of three residences (Table 1). Then, a thermal comfort survey was carried out with ten users of three residential and seven non-residential buildings. Different building types were selected from the traditional Gaziantep houses in the Bey neighbourhood to have a homogeneous distribution. The selected functions other than residential buildings are cafes, museums, hotels, and public buildings. For each building, one person who spends the most time in this building was selected for the interview.
Participants were selected through voluntary participation using snowballing techniques. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to collect qualitative data and discover the participants’ experiences [50]. The interviews explored various aspects, including social data such as values and challenges associated with living in a historic building, thermal comfort, energy efficiency, and attitudes towards changes. A total of 41 questions were asked. The last part of the interview was about retrofitting criteria. Residents and non-residents were given a list of 7 criteria for retrofitting and asked to prioritise these criteria (Appendix A).
On the other hand, a thermal comfort survey using the ASHRAE scale [59] was conducted to understand the thermal comfort perception of users (Table 2). This survey, which consisted of 5 questions, aimed at understanding and extrapolating the desired and perceived thermal comfort of users during both winter and summer periods. The survey helped to compare perceived thermal comfort between preferences and compare them with those of users of residential and non-residential buildings.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed using a system dynamics approach via Nvivo 13 and Vensim. Each residential building is considered a separate case. In the first phase of analysis, the interviews were transcribed. The interviews of each resident were then coded in Nvivo 13 and analysed thematically. Thematic analysis, within the grounded theory framework, provides a methodology for analysing qualitative interview data [60]. The interview data were methodically categorised using a systematic approach consisting of three distinct steps: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Open coding was used to find as many variables as possible and themes relevant to the main research topics. Then, axial and selective coding processes are applied. These codes are categorised under relevant themes. The coding and analysis process used is based on the research of Fouseki et al. [52]. Cause-and-effect relationships between codes were created on Nvivo 13. The relationship function was used for this. A causal loop diagram is created using the Vensim software. The same process was applied separately for three houses, and three separate Causal Loop Diagrams were obtained. Then, similar relationships between all diagrams are identified. Later, these three causal loop diagrams were aggregated, and a final causal loop diagram was created, showing the cause and effect of the dynamic relationships between the variables and themes [47] (Figure 3). Some essential but non-repeating patterns are also included in this causal loop diagram. Iterative relationships (loops) were identified as “reinforcing” and “balancing” [51]. Blue arrows with a positive (+) symbol indicate a reinforcing relationship, indicating that when one of the variables increases, the other is similarly affected. Conversely, red arrows with a negative (−) symbol indicate a balancing relationship, signifying that when one variable increases, the other decreases. On the other hand, the thermal comfort survey was analysed descriptively using Excel 2021. Frequencies are determined. The distributions of residents’ and non-residents’ desired and perceived thermal comfort were analysed.

3. Results

3.1. Thematic Analysis of Interviews

As a result of the process described above, three main themes were identified. These are heritage conservation, thermal comfort, and energy efficiency. Under these themes, attitude and behaviour, materials, senses, time, and resources sub-themes were identified. Categories and codes related to these sub-themes are identified. Three hundred and twelve codes were created (Figure 4).

3.2. System Dynamics Analysis of Interviews

3.2.1. Residents’ Thermal Comfort Perception

Figure 5 shows thermal comfort plays a key role in energy efficiency and heritage conservation. Both perceived and desired thermal comfort in summer and winter significantly affect energy efficiency and heritage conservation.
Figure 6 shows interactions between perceived and desired thermal comforts and the factors affecting them. Reinforcing relationships are shown by the R9 and R10 loops between the residents’ perceived and desired thermal comfort levels. When perceived thermal comfort increases, the desired thermal comfort decreases both in summer and winter.
Similar to many vernacular architectures, Gaziantep’s traditional houses have evolved numerous features to adapt to the hot climate. These houses are typically located around courtyards enclosed by high walls. The inclusion of plants and water features, such as pools within courtyards and underground chambers, has played a crucial role in creating cool spaces that have enhanced thermal comfort for residents in this hot climate region. The flexible use of parts of the house according to the climate is also one of the ways in which users cope with the hot climate. B1, B4, and B5 loops show how original features affect residents’ desired and perceived thermal comfort.
Passive strategies such as using courtyards, north-facing rooms, and caves offered significant advantages in terms of thermal comfort, particularly in the summer. Despite moisture limitations, caves, described as the city’s air conditioner, have been found to enhance perceived thermal comfort during the summer months (B4 loop). Courtyards, defined as life by residents, are considered essential for maintaining thermal comfort. Residents commonly spend most of the summer days in these spaces. Residents stated this as follows:
“We often use the room facing the courtyard because it is so calm and cool”.
“I sleep in front of the cave door in summer. Cooler air comes from there like air conditioning”.
“I think the house is very cool in summer and warm in winter because of the thickness of the walls”.
Traditional architectural features like the orientation of buildings, stone constructions, and thick walls are recognised as primary contributors to thermal comfort in winter, which is generally cool and snowy. The B5 loop indicates the relationship between desired and perceived thermal comfort in the winter. The original features affect the thermal comfort conditions of the users, especially in the winter months, with the degradation of their physical conditions over time when the required maintenance is not carried out. The physical condition of original building elements, such as windows, affects the residents’ perceived thermal comfort in winter, and the perceived thermal comfort affects their desired thermal comfort. They desire a more comfortable environment in the winter, so they desire to change the original windows, which have single-glazing and timber frames (B1) (Figure 6). Residents stated this as follows:
“It would be good to change the windows for the winter. Maybe PVC or something”.
“Due to the orientation of the house, the sun heats it in winter”.

3.2.2. The Dynamic Relationships between Thermal Comfort, Heritage Conservation and Energy Efficiency

Users stated that the historical neighbourhood should be preserved because of its authenticity, original, aesthetic, heritage, architectural, and historical values. The values attributed to the buildings and the neighbourhood by the users impact the conservation of the building, their interventions, and their feelings. Resident 1 said, “Because of their historical value, these buildings should be protected”.
As shown in Figure 7, the buildings’ original features, such as walls and windows, increase the heritage value, contributing to users’ satisfaction with the buildings (R6 loop). As the heritage value of the original elements in historic buildings increases, the cost of maintenance increases due to their authenticity, as they require more specific craftsmanship. Increasing these expenses often poses challenges for users in maintaining their houses. As a result, when maintenance becomes impractical or impossible, it can lead to damage to the original features and the physical condition of the houses (B6 loop). Improving the physical conditions of the original features increases the original features in the building, and this will increase the heritage value. On the other hand, the increase in original features increases the probability of the physical deterioration rate of the original features throughout the building due to a lack of maintenance and cost (B7 loop). This deterioration becomes a negative situation that affects the users’ perceived thermal comfort, especially in winter. In this regard, users stated the following:
“There is no change that I regret because we have never changed the original, which is our whole struggle. We did not interfere with most parts of the house to preserve its originality”.
“We are delighted to take the toilet from the inside to the garden. This was not original”
“This house needs a lot of maintenance and is too expensive. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get support from anywhere, so we hadn’t maintained it”.
On the other hand, regarding time, as presented in Figure 8, it is evident that the longer users live in these houses, the more they adapt to the living environment and become willing to implement passive strategies like using more courtyard and north-facing rooms in the summer to regulate thermal comfort. Especially as their adaptation increases, there is a noticeable convergence towards desired thermal comfort conditions during the summer months. Residents use the house flexibly in summer and winter to adapt to climatic conditions. Moreover, it was observed that a high sense of belonging to the area increases their adaptability to the buildings’ environment. Additionally, as users adapt to the current conditions of the houses, their duration of stay in these houses increases (R8 loop). As noted by one of the participants:
“I try to adapt to the conditions. I use the upper floors in winter and the lower floors more in summer”.
“It was challenging for the toilet and sink to be outside, but we got used to it. When you have your own house, you get used to it somehow”.
The restoration that the traditional houses went through enhanced the originality and heritage value of the buildings (R1) and (R2). Meanwhile, because of modernisation, people’s comfort expectations changed, so that historic buildings stopped fulfilling the expected or desired thermal comfort conditions. With technological developments such as HVAC systems, people now expect controlled indoor environments that provide constant temperature and ventilation. Consequently, the neighbourhood faced buildings being abandoned. The gradual abandonment of historic buildings has affected the neighbourhood, and the residents remaining in the area have led to the demolition of some buildings as well as a lack of security and safety. Enhancing safety meant that the external facades, and hence originality, had to be altered. The number of demolished buildings has considerably increased, affecting the sense of security. This situation has been exacerbated by buildings changing their uses from domestic to non-domestic activities (e.g., hotels, restaurants, cafes, etc.), which has impacted residents and their ideas and aspirations to change or preserve some of the original elements of the buildings, such as doors and windows (R5) and (R4) (Figure 9). Regarding this matter, residents expressed the following:
“With this decision, only the exterior of the building was changed”.
“There are cafes that is another problem, there are unknown people until the morning………Since I have daughters, this was a problem for us”
“…the problems have increased a lot because these houses are used as hostels”
“I would like to change the original exterior door because of the thieves. They came by climbing, so I cut down the trees. Security is a big problem”.
As mentioned in the previous section, many houses in the neighbourhood have been demolished due to neglect over a long period of time. This has resulted in increased theft in the area, prompting residents to resort to drastic measures, such as cutting down trees in the courtyards and increasing the use of external lighting at night to prevent theft. One of the respondents expressed the measures she took in this regard.
“We turn on 1–2 extra lamps because of the fear that a thief will come to the house”.
The changes to the courtyards have also impacted the perceived thermal comfort, leading to increased use of mechanical systems such as air conditioning during the summer. This, in turn, has caused an increase in energy consumption. However, the increasing costs of energy bills have led to less reliance on energy-inefficient systems. Higher bills have forced residents to reduce their usage due to constraints, thereby affecting their perception and desires of thermal comfort (B3) and (B2) (Figure 10).
“The amount of energy consumption has decreased; we are reducing the use because the prices have increased too much”.

3.3. Thermal Comfort Survey Analysis

3.3.1. Desired and Perceived Thermal Comfort of Residents and Non-Residents

A thermal comfort survey is conducted with users to see the difference between three residents and seven non-residents’ desired and perceived thermal comfort. They were asked to select their thermal comfort using the ASHRAE 55 thermal sensation scale.
The answers given by the users are shown in Table 3. It is seen that the answers given by the users for general thermal comfort are distributed in the range of −1 and 1 for both residents and non-residents. The results show that the desired thermal comfort levels are approximately the same for all users in summer and winter.
The main difference is in perceived thermal comfort levels by residents and non-residents. Residents are more satisfied with the current thermal comfort conditions than non-residents. Residents’ perceived thermal comfort level is higher than that of non-residents in summer and winter (Table 3). The survey results support the findings of the causal loop diagrams obtained by the system dynamics method on the effect of adaptation on perceived thermal comfort. This difference in perceived thermal comfort between residents and non-residents can be explained by the higher adaptability of the users due to the longer time they spend in these buildings. It is also effective that residential users use the architectural features of these buildings, like the courtyard, more frequently in their daily lives to cope with the extreme heat in the summer months.

3.3.2. Retrofitting Decisions

The users were asked to rank the criteria affecting their decisions when retrofitting in order of importance. 1 represents the most important, and 7 represents the least important. These criteria are the preservation of historical features and heritage value of buildings, compatibility of any changes with the building’s historical context, reduction of energy consumption, the historical significance of the neighbourhood, cost of maintaining original features, cost of energy efficiency, and thermal comfort. It is seen that the preservation of the historical/heritage value of the buildings and the neighbourhood comes first for all users. In addition, according to the causal loop diagrams obtained with system dynamics, it is seen that increasing the heritage value of the houses increases their satisfaction levels. While residential users prioritise thermal comfort and reduce energy consumption when making retrofitting decisions, it is seen that cost criteria like energy efficiency and maintenance of original features are more important when we look at non-residential users (Figure 11).

4. Discussion

Understanding the role of perceived thermal comfort in balancing energy efficiency and heritage conservation is crucial. The decision-making process for improving the energy and thermal performance of a historic building is complex and dynamic, extending beyond a basic conflict between thermal comfort and heritage values/preservation [61,62]. System dynamics provides a comprehensive analysis of the dynamic processes involved in achieving a balance between these features [52]. Residents appreciate living in their houses because of their cultural/heritage value. Even if users are not satisfied with the thermal comfort of the building, they tend to prioritise its heritage value [22]. However, because of the urban and social transformation of the Bey neighbourhood in Gaziantep, living in this neighbourhood has become more challenging for them. The change in heritage value attributed to these buildings over time is a layered and complex process, related not only to changes around the increasing need for thermal comfort [21], but also to the social transformation of their surroundings. On the other hand, there may be a conflict between enhancing thermal comfort and maintaining the original characteristics of the residents’ homes [37]. For this reason, user-centred holistic approaches rather than standardised approaches are needed for historic buildings’ conservation and energy efficiency.
Especially for these historical buildings located in the hot climate zone, architectural features like the courtyard are a crucial factor for the thermal comfort perception of the users [43]. The IEA report demonstrates the increase in energy consumption for cooling compared to heating [1]. This increase indicates that passive strategies for cooling that affect their perceived thermal comfort should be emphasised more, especially in hot and dry climates. Thermal comfort perceptions of the users seem to be one of the main motivations that affect the usage of buildings’ parts. The fact that the thermal comfort of these parts is similar to the comfort conditions expected by the users ensures that these parts are used more frequently. When continuous use is ensured, a significant advantage will be provided regarding conservation. It is seen that the users give more value to the parts of the building that contribute to their thermal comfort [44]. Also, residents were observed to have a higher heat tolerance than non-residents in the summer. This is emphasised by the residents’ own adaptations because they have been living in these houses for many years. It is essential for long-term sustainable solutions to understand the complexity of user decision-making processes for conservation, thermal comfort, and energy efficiency in historic buildings [22].

5. Conclusions

The energy efficiency of historical buildings has been widely studied in recent years. Although the importance of integrating user preferences into conservation and energy efficiency strategies is recognised, users’ influence is generally overlooked in decision-making processes. For a holistic approach, users should have an active role within the scope of these studies. This paper aimed to provide insights into the role of residents’ perceptions of thermal comfort in heritage conservation and energy efficiency in traditional houses in Gaziantep. The most significant finding of this study is that the users’ perception of thermal comfort plays a key role in preserving the heritage value of historical buildings and energy efficiency.
On the other hand, it was shown that architectural features of historic buildings, such as caves, courtyards, and wall thickness, especially in the hot climate region, are critical in shaping users’ thermal comfort. Also, the users’ feelings, such as security or happiness, and the value of these buildings are essential variables in triggering their behaviour towards the building and the neighbourhood regarding conservation, energy use, and thermal comfort.
Building energy use and residents’ thermal comfort perceptions are affected not only by physical factors but also by social and cultural factors. Future studies need to focus on a user-centred approach to heritage conservation and energy efficiency. Conducting similar studies in different regions will provide a broader perspective on this issue. The perceptions of thermal comfort and user expectations need to be understood and integrated into energy efficiency studies of historic buildings. The link between heritage conservation and energy efficiency can be achieved through user-centred strategies. Exploring the perception of thermal comfort is one of the important parameters that will contribute to this process.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, fieldwork in residences of the Bey neighbourhood, Gaziantep, formal analysis, and writing—original draft preparation, M.K.B.; fieldwork supervision, K.F. and H.A.; writing—review and editing, M.K.B., K.F. and H.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

M.K.B. is funded by Ministry of National Education of Türkiye.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality, KUDEB, for their help in the fieldwork and sharing the drawings of the buildings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A. Summary of Semi-Structured Interviews

TopicSub-TopicPurpose of the Topic
General informationBuilding’s featuresGather comprehensive information about the building’s characteristics.
Profile of the participant Personal BackgroundGather information about interviewee’s background and connection with the building and its surroundings.
Values and challenges in living in an old buildingViews on the Area and Changes Over TimeGather the interviewee’s opinions on the neighbourhood and identify significant changes over time.
Evaluation of the BuildingAssess the interviewee’s perspective on the importance of various aspects of the building and its conservation.
Evaluation of the NeighbourhoodIdentify aspects of the neighbourhood that the interviewee values and areas they believe require improvement.
Initial Interventions and Subsequent ChangesInvestigate the interventions the interviewee undertook upon moving into the building and any subsequent modifications made.
Building Condition and MaintenanceUnderstand the initial condition of the building upon moving in and the maintenance made over time.
Challenges and SolutionsIdentify the main challenges faced by the interviewee in living in the building and the strategies employed to cope with them.
Thermal comfort and energy efficiency Thermal Comfort in Different SeasonsGather information about the interviewee’s comfort levels regarding temperature in different seasons and their strategies to cope with it.
Environmental Conditions Inside the BuildingUnderstand factors such as humidity levels and natural light distribution within the building.
Energy Consumption and CostsCollect data on the interviewee’s energy bills, consumption patterns, and any efforts to reduce energy usage.
Professional and Financial AssistanceDetermine the extent of professional and financial support received by the interviewee for implementing interventions and improvements.
Room Utilisation and ComfortGather insights into the usage patterns of different rooms within the building and assess their comfort levels.
Attitudes towards changesReflections on Changes MadeReflect on past interventions and identify any regrets or satisfaction regarding changes made to the building.
Future Changes and LimitationsExplore the interviewee’s plans for future changes to the building and any constraints they face in implementing the desired changes.
Retrofit InterventionsSummary of InterventionsList all interventions undertaken, performed, or planned to be performed by the interviewee.
Retrofitting CriteriaThey were given a list of 7 criteria for retrofitting and asked to prioritise them.

References

  1. IEA (International Energy Agency). Tracking Clean Energy Progress. 2023. Available online: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings#tracking (accessed on 3 February 2024).
  2. Moran, F.; Blight, T.; Natarajan, S.; Shea, A. The use of Passive House Planning Package to reduce energy use and CO emissions in historic dwellings. Energy Build. 2014, 75, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. TÜİK Kurumsal. 2021. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Bina-ve-Konut-Nitelikleri-Arastirmasi-2021-45870 (accessed on 7 April 2024).
  4. TÜİK Kurumsal. 2022. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Kulturel-Miras-Istatistikleri-2022-49749 (accessed on 7 April 2024).
  5. Martínez-Molina, A.; Tort-Ausina, I.; Cho, S.; Vivancos, J.-L. Energy efficiency and thermal comfort in historic buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lidelow, S.; Orn, T.; Luciani, A.; Rizzo, A.; Lidelöw, S.; Örn, T.; Luciani, A.; Rizzo, A. Energy-efficiency measures for heritage buildings: A literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cassar, M.; Pender, R. The Impact of Climate Change on Cultural Heritage: Evidence and Response. In Proceedings of the ICOM Committee for Conservation: 14th Triennial Meeting, The Hague, The Netherlands, 12–16 September 2005; pp. 610–616. Available online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/5059/ (accessed on 10 April 2024).
  8. Coelho, G.B.A.; Silva, H.E.; Henriques, F.M.A. Impact of climate change on cultural heritage: A simulation study to assess the risks for conservation and thermal comfort. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2019, 19, 382–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ríos Fernández, J.C.; González-Caballín, J.M.; Gutiérrez-Trashorras, A.J. Effect of the climatic conditions in energy efficiency of Spanish existing dwellings. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2020, 22, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Egusquiza, A.; Prieto, I.; Izkara, J.L.; Béjar, R. Multi-scale urban data models for early-stage suitability assessment of energy conservation measures in historic urban areas. Energy Build. 2018, 164, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ulu, M.; Durmuş Arsan, Z. Retrofit Strategies for Energy Efficiency of Historic Urban Fabric in Mediterranean Climate. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Webb, A.L. Energy retrofits in historic and traditional buildings: A review of problems and methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 748–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Berg, F.; Flyen, A.-C.; Godbolt, Å.L.; Broström, T. User-driven energy efficiency in historic buildings: A review. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 28, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Norrström, H. Sustainable and Balanced Energy Efficiency and Preservation in Our Built Heritage. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2623–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. De Santoli, L. Reprint of “Guidelines on energy efficiency of cultural heritage”. Energy Build. 2015, 95, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Panakaduwa, C.; Coates, P.; Munir, M. Identifying sustainable retrofit challenges of historical Buildings: A systematic review. Energy Build. 2024, 313, 114226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Onecha, B.; Dotor, A.; Marmolejo-Duarte, C. Beyond cultural and historic values, sustainability as a new kind of value for historic buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jayalath, A.; Vaz-Serra, P.; Hui, F.K.P.; Aye, L. Thermally comfortable energy efficient affordable houses: A review. Build. Environ. 2024, 256, 111495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. BS EN 16883; Conservation of Cultural Heritage—Guidelines for Improving the Energy Performance of Historic Buildings. BSI Standards Publication: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
  20. Historic England. Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: How to Improve Energy Efficiency. 2018. Available online: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/eehb-how-to-improve-energy-efficiency/heag094-how-to-improve-energy-efficiency/ (accessed on 7 December 2021).
  21. Fouseki, K.; Bobrova, Y. Understanding the change of heritage values over time and its impact on energy efficiency: Decision-making at residential historic buildings through system dynamics. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings, Visby, Sweden, 26–27 September 2018; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sofia Murillo Camacho, K.; Medina, A.; Giovanni Mainini, A.; Lobaccaro, G.; Košir, M.; Diego Blanco Cadena, J.; Sofia Murillo Camacho, K.; Fouseki, K.; Altamirano Medina, H. Decision-Making Processes of Residents in Preservation, Thermal Comfort, and Energy Efficiency in Heritage Buildings: A Pilot Study in Mexico City. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yarrow, T. Negotiating Heritage and Energy Conservation: An Ethnography of Domestic Renovation. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2016, 7, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Buda, A.; de Place Hansen, E.J.; Rieser, A.; Giancola, E.; Pracchi, V.N.; Mauri, S.; Marincioni, V.; Gori, V.; Fouseki, K.; López, C.S.P.; et al. Conservation-Compatible Retrofit Solutions in Historic Buildings: An Integrated Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buda, A.; Pracchi, V. Built Heritage: Strategies of People Involvement for Minimizing Retrofit Interventions. A Review of Documents and Case Studies. The Human Dimension of Building Energy Performance. 2019. Available online: https://re.public.polimi.it/handle/11311/1082119 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  26. Wise, F.; Jones, D.; Moncaster, A. Reducing carbon from heritage buildings: The importance of residents’ views, values and behaviours. J. Archit. Conserv. 2021, 27, 117–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dolšak, J. Determinants of energy efficient retrofits in residential sector: A comprehensive analysis. Energy Build. 2023, 282, 112801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ben, H.; Steemers, K. Energy retrofit and occupant behaviour in protected housing: A case study of the Brunswick Centre in London. Energy Build. 2014, 80, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Polo López, C.S.; Frontini, F. Energy efficiency and renewable solar energy integration in heritage historic buildings. Energy Procedia 2014, 48, 1493–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, J.; Schiavon, S.; Brager, G. Personal comfort models—A new paradigm in thermal comfort for occupant-centric environmental control. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arowoiya, V.A.; Onososen, A.O.; Moehler, R.C. Influence of Thermal Comfort on Energy Consumption for Building Occupants: The Current State of the Art. Buildings 2024, 14, 1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Haselsteiner, E. Gender Matters! Thermal Comfort and Individual Perception of Indoor Environmental Quality: A Literature Review; Future City; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Geng, Y.; Ji, W.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ perception and productivity. Build. Environ. 2017, 121, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yoshino, H.; Hong, T.; Nord, N. IEA EBC annex 53: Total Energy Use in Buildings Analysis and Evaluation Methods. Energy Build. 2013, 152, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Spigliantini, G.; Fabi, V.; Schweiker, M.; Corgnati, S. Historical buildings’ energy conservation potentialities: A methodology focused on building operation. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2019, 37, 306–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yu, Z.; Fung, B.C.M.; Haghighat, F.; Yoshino, H.; Morofsky, E. A systematic procedure to study the influence of occupant behavior on building energy consumption. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 1409–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Koukou, T.; Fouseki, K. Heritage values and thermal comfort in Neoclassical residential buildings of Athens, Greece Tension or co-existence? In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings (EEHB2018), Visby, Sweden, 26–27 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
  38. Eriksson, P.; Johansson, T. Towards Differentiated Energy Renovation Strategies for Heritage-Designated Multifamily Building Stocks. Heritage 2021, 4, 4318–4334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Thravalou, S.; Philokyprou, M.; Michael, A. The impact of window control on thermal performance. investigating adaptable interventions in vernacular mediterranean heritage. J. Archit. Conserv. 2018, 24, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cantin, R.; Burgholzer, J.; Guarracino, G.; Moujalled, B.; Tamelikecht, S.; Royet, B.G. Field assessment of thermal behaviour of historical dwellings in France. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ibrahim, H.S.S.; Khan, A.Z.; Mahar, W.A.; Attia, S.; Serag, Y. Assessment of passive retrofitting scenarios in heritage residential buildings in hot, dry climates. Energies 2021, 14, 3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zarei, M.E.; Mirdehqan Ashkezari, S.F.; Yari, M. The investigation of the function of the central courtyard in moderating the harsh environmental conditions of a hot and dry climate (Case Study: City of Yazd, Iran). Spatium 2017, 26, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Anaç, M.; Cuce, P.M.; Cuce, E. Passive sustainability strategies in traditional Gaziantep residences: A critical report on historical development. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2024, 19, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Karabeyeser, M.; Altamirano, H.; Fouseki, K. The effect of underground chambers on the moisture balance of historical buildings in a hot and dry climate. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Moisture in Buildings (ICMB23), London, UK, 3–4 July 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liaw, C.; da Silva, V.E.; Maduro, R.; Megrè, M.; de Souza Inácio Gonçalves, J.C.; dos Santos, E.M.; Mouette, D. Thermal Comfort Analysis Using System Dynamics Modeling—A Sustainable Scenario Proposition for Low-Income Housing in Brazil. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zimmermann, N.; Chiu, L.F.; Bobrova, Y.; Chalabi, Z. Endogenous transformation of exogenous effects in a system dynamics model of heating, ventilation and rebound. In Proceedings of the 2016 International System Dynamics Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, 17–21 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sterman, J.D. System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, D.H. Introduction to Systems Thinking; Pegasus Communications: Waltham, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Forrester, J.W. Lessons from system dynamics modeling. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1987, 3, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eker, S.; Zimmermann, N. Using textual data in system dynamics model conceptualization. Systems 2016, 4, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kauffman, D.L. Systems 1: An Introduction to Systems Thinking. Futur. Syst. 1980, 8, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  52. Fouseki, K.; Newton, D.; Camacho, K.S.M.; Nandi, S.; Koukou, T. Energy effciency, thermal comfort, and heritage conservation in residential historic buildings as dynamic and systemic socio-cultural practices. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Turkish State Meteorological Service. Extreme Maximum, Minimum and Average Temperatures Measured in Long Period (°C). 2024. Available online: https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?k=undefined&m=GAZIANTEP (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  54. Weather and Climate. Available online: https://weatherandclimate.com/turkey/gaziantep (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  55. Korumaz, M.; Canan, F.; Güleç, S.A. Evaluation of the Energy Efficiency of Gaziantep Traditional Houses. In Proceedings of the PLEA 2006-The 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Geneva, Switzerland, 6–8 September 2006. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tastan, H. The Role of Climate on Residential Architecture and Living Culture: An Example of Gaziantep. Acad. Res. Community Publ. 2019, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Güçhan Şahin, N.; Kurul, E. A Hıstory of the Development of Conservatıon Measures in Turkey: From the Mıd 19th Century Untıl 2004. Metu J. Fac. Archit. 2009, 26, 19–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akten, M.; Sunar, C. Tarihi Çevrelerïn Kentsel Meka Kalïtesï Üzerïn Etkïsï: Gazïantep Bey Mahallesï Örneğï. Turkish J. For. Sci. 2022, 6, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. ASHRAE. ASHRAE 55:2004 Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Ashrae 2004, 2004, 30. [Google Scholar]
  60. Chapman, A.; Hadfield, M.; Chapman, C. Qualitative research in healthcare: An introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 2015, 45, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Newton, D.; Fouseki, K. Heritage Values as a Driver or Obstacle for Energy Efficiency in Victorian and Edwardian Buildings; Upsalla University: Upsalla, Sweden, 2018; pp. 530–538. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fouseki, K. Heritage Dynamics: Understanding and Adapting to Change in Diverse Heritage Contexts; UCL Press: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 14 01800 g001
Figure 1. Map of Gaziantep (map stamen) and two urban sites (A: Bey neighbourhood) (Kudeb).
Figure 1. Map of Gaziantep (map stamen) and two urban sites (A: Bey neighbourhood) (Kudeb).
Buildings 14 01800 g001
Buildings 14 01800 g002
Figure 2. Example of Gaziantep traditional houses ((a) shaded narrow streets, (b) a building with a shaded courtyard, and (c) a cave).
Figure 2. Example of Gaziantep traditional houses ((a) shaded narrow streets, (b) a building with a shaded courtyard, and (c) a cave).
Buildings 14 01800 g002
Buildings 14 01800 g003
Figure 3. Research flow.
Figure 3. Research flow.
Buildings 14 01800 g003
Buildings 14 01800 g004
Figure 4. Codes and themes.
Figure 4. Codes and themes.
Buildings 14 01800 g004
Buildings 14 01800 g005
Figure 5. Aggregated causal loop diagram (themes obtained from the codes are presented in the following colours: green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; purple: resources; blue: senses; yellow: values; and grey: time. Blue arrows show reinforcing relationships (+), while red arrows show balancing relationships (−). The themes related to heritage conservation (purple), energy efficiency (green), and thermal comfort (orange) are shown in gradient colours.
Figure 5. Aggregated causal loop diagram (themes obtained from the codes are presented in the following colours: green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; purple: resources; blue: senses; yellow: values; and grey: time. Blue arrows show reinforcing relationships (+), while red arrows show balancing relationships (−). The themes related to heritage conservation (purple), energy efficiency (green), and thermal comfort (orange) are shown in gradient colours.
Buildings 14 01800 g005
Buildings 14 01800 g006
Figure 6. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 5 shows the interactions between residents’ perceived and desired thermal (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; and blue: senses).
Figure 6. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 5 shows the interactions between residents’ perceived and desired thermal (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; and blue: senses).
Buildings 14 01800 g006
Buildings 14 01800 g007
Figure 7. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 5 showing the interactions between heritage conservation and thermal comfort (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; purple: resources; blue: senses; and yellow: values).
Figure 7. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 5 showing the interactions between heritage conservation and thermal comfort (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; purple: resources; blue: senses; and yellow: values).
Buildings 14 01800 g007
Buildings 14 01800 g008
Figure 8. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 4 showing the relationship between adaptation and desired thermal comfort in summer (green: attitudes and behaviours; blue: senses; yellow: values; and grey: time).
Figure 8. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 4 showing the relationship between adaptation and desired thermal comfort in summer (green: attitudes and behaviours; blue: senses; yellow: values; and grey: time).
Buildings 14 01800 g008
Buildings 14 01800 g009
Figure 9. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 4 showing the interaction between social factors, conservation, and heritage value (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; blue: senses; and yellow: values).
Figure 9. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 4 showing the interaction between social factors, conservation, and heritage value (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; blue: senses; and yellow: values).
Buildings 14 01800 g009
Buildings 14 01800 g010
Figure 10. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 5 shows the interaction between thermal comfort, heritage conservation, and energy efficiency (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; purple: resources; blue: senses; and yellow: values).
Figure 10. The part of the aggregated causal loop diagram in Figure 5 shows the interaction between thermal comfort, heritage conservation, and energy efficiency (green: attitudes and behaviours; red: materials; purple: resources; blue: senses; and yellow: values).
Buildings 14 01800 g010
Buildings 14 01800 g011
Figure 11. Importance of criteria when retrofitting historic buildings.
Figure 11. Importance of criteria when retrofitting historic buildings.
Buildings 14 01800 g011
Table 1. Selected buildings.
Table 1. Selected buildings.
Building 1Building 2Building 3
PlanBuildings 14 01800 i001 *Buildings 14 01800 i002 *Buildings 14 01800 i003 *
PhotographsBuildings 14 01800 i004Buildings 14 01800 i005Buildings 14 01800 i006 **
Number of floors233
Number of rooms893
Courtyard✓✓x
Cave✓✓x
Poolx✓x
* Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality, KUDEB, ** Google earth, Gaziantep, 20 May 2024, ✓: Yes, X: No.
Table 2. ASHRAE 55 thermal sensation scale [59].
Table 2. ASHRAE 55 thermal sensation scale [59].
−3 Cold−2 Cool−1 Slightly cool0 Neutral+1 Slightly warm+2 Warm+3 Hot
Table 3. Frequency table of thermal comfort responses of residents and non-residents.
Table 3. Frequency table of thermal comfort responses of residents and non-residents.
−3−2−10123
Thermal comfort in generalResidents 111
Non-residents 223
Thermal comfort in summerResidents 21
Non-residents 52
Thermal comfort in winterResidents 12
Non-residents 25
Ideal temperature in winterResidents 12
Non-residents 16
Ideal temperature in summerResidents 21
Non-residents 61
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karabeyeser Bakan, M.; Fouseki, K.; Altamirano, H. Investigating the Role of Thermal Comfort Perception on Negotiating Heritage Conservation and Energy Efficiency Decisions through System Dynamics. Buildings 2024, 14, 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061800

AMA Style

Karabeyeser Bakan M, Fouseki K, Altamirano H. Investigating the Role of Thermal Comfort Perception on Negotiating Heritage Conservation and Energy Efficiency Decisions through System Dynamics. Buildings. 2024; 14(6):1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061800

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karabeyeser Bakan, Merve, Kalliopi Fouseki, and Hector Altamirano. 2024. "Investigating the Role of Thermal Comfort Perception on Negotiating Heritage Conservation and Energy Efficiency Decisions through System Dynamics" Buildings 14, no. 6: 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061800

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop