The concept of 'comfort' has been influential in shaping aspects of our built environment. For the construction industry, comfort is predominantly understood in terms of the balance between an ideal human physiological state and a finite number of measurable environmental parameters that can be controlled (temperature, humidity, air quality, daylighting, noise). It is such a notion of comfort that has informed the establishment of universally applied comfort standards and guidelines for the built environment. When buildings rigidly conform to these standards, they consume vast quantities of energy and are responsible for higher levels of GHG emissions. Recent researchers have challenged such instrumental definitions of comfort on moral and environmental grounds. In this paper, we address this issue from two different standpoints: one empirical, one related to the design of technology.

Empirically, we present an analysis of ethnographic field material that has examined how, in what circumstances, and at what times ordinary users employ energy-intensive indoor climate technologies in their daily lives. We argue that when comfort is viewed as an achievement, rather than as a reified and static ideal homeostasis between humans and their environmental conditions, it becomes easier to appreciate the extent to which comfort is, for ordinary people, personally idiosyncratic, culturally relative, socially influenced and highly dependent on temporality, sequence and activity. With respect to design, we introduce a set of provocative designed prototypes that embody alternative conceptions of 'comfort' than those to which the building industry typically subscribes.

Our discussion has critical implications for the types of technologies that result from a 'comfort standards' conception. Firstly, we show that comfort is not simply a homeostatic equilibrium–such a view is overly narrow, inflexible and ultimately an inaccurate conception of what comfort is for ordinary people; secondly, that it promotes technologies that treat environmental parameters as variables for our manipulation, rather than opportunities to reflect on, and adjust our own (temporal human) fit with our environment. Borrowing from Cole et al. [4], we argue for technologies that enable users to inhabit rather than occupy the built environment.