As advanced technologies become prevalent, they are being used more widely in numerous fields. The building sector is not an exception. One of these cutting-edge technologies is responsive facades, which are used in buildings and have an undeniable effect on daylighting. However, they have not been adequately evaluated for improving visual comfort in hospitals. This study investigates visual comfort in a standard patient room, based on applying four responsive facades. Simulations were conducted using HoneybeePlus, a plugin in the Grasshopper. Simulation-based results of annual indicators, including Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) and spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA), showed that different facades could result in several optimal modes. Furthermore, a more comprehensive investigation should consider factors such as Daylight Glare Probability (DGP) and Daylight Glare Index (DGI). Glare indicators revealed that facade directly affects patient visual comfort and can even have an adverse effect. When the optimal responsive facade is chosen, it enhances users' visual comfort throughout the year, yet there will be still glare probability in some cases. Based on the results, this probability decreases as patient distance increases, and Window to Wall Ratio (WWR) is not particularly effective in reducing glare. Nevertheless, when it comes to daylight availability, WWR cannot be ignored, and the first façade with WWR 60% showed the best overall performance.

Outdoor urban spaces are essential to residents’ well-being, yet their thermal comfort is increasingly compromised by urbanization and climate change. Although urban morphology has been widely studied, its effects on human thermal comfort within mi-croclimates remain inadequately understood. This study addresses this gap by exam-ining the interactions between urban morphology, microclimate, and pedestrian ther-mal comfort. We employed a systematic literature review guided by the PRISMA framework, alongside parametric thinking using General Morphological Analysis (GMA) to systematically explore how variations in urban form parameters influence microclimatic conditions and pedestrian thermal comfort. The study’s objectives were threefold: (1) to systematically analyze the existing literature, identify key trends, and uncover knowledge gaps; (2) to explore the psychological, physical, and social factors influencing thermal perception; and (3) to assess how urban morphological features affect microclimate and pedestrian thermal comfort. To address these challenges, we developed a novel framework, Design Tools, which quantitatively links urban mor-phology parameters, outdoor thermal indices, and pedestrian comfort. By prioritizing outdoor thermal comfort in urban design, this approach offers valuable insights to en-hance climate-responsive design strategies and improve pedestrian well-being amid the growing challenges of urban heat islands.

This study investigates the interplay between thermal comfort, sleep quality, and physiological responses during nocturnal rest. Despite the critical role of temperature in sleep regulation, existing thermal comfort standards fail to define specific thresholds for sleeping conditions. A three‐phase experimental protocol was conducted in Tehran during the summer of 2023, involving 12 healthy adults (six men and six women, aged 28–39). Using temperature–humidity data loggers, wearable health sensors, sleep tracking software, and postsleep surveys, the study evaluated both objective and subjective indicators of sleep‐related thermal comfort. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation, two‐way repeated measures ANOVA, and Bonferroni’s post hoc tests were used to analyze associations between temperature, physiological responses, and perceived sleep quality. Results revealed strong correlations between bed surface temperatures, body temperature, and heart rate. Specifically, the optimal lower bed temperatures ranged from 21.70°C to 26.85°C for men and 24.76°C to 28.11°C for women, while upper bed temperatures ranged from 22.29°C to 26.24°C for men and 23.70°C to 28.41°C for women. Compared to ASHRAE and ISO 7730 daytime standards, the male temperature ranges fell within acceptable limits, while female comfort ranges exceeded these standards by approximately 1.5°C–2.5°C. These findings highlight the need for gender‐specific thermal comfort guidelines in sleep environments and underscore the limitations of current standards in addressing nocturnal physiological needs.