Personalized Environmental Control Systems (PECS) can improve both comfort and energy efficiency by shifting indoor climate control toward localized, occupant-tailored comfort, unlike conventional systems that condition entire, partly unoccupied spaces uniformly. . Despite their potential, the absence of standardized assessment and reporting methods, and the diversified PECS technical specifics hinder consistent performance evaluation practices. Conducted in the framework of IEA EBC’s Annex 87, this review, based on the PRISMA statement, provides a comprehensive overview of existing methods and indicators used to evaluate the performance of PECS, specifically targeting thermal and air quality domains. A novel three-layered classification approach was applied to categorize PECS types, and reviewed studies were grouped into four methodological categories: building simulation, CFD, chamber, and field studies. The review identifies methods’ usage trends, benefits, and limitations. Among 302 reviewed papers, more than half (61 %) adopt controlled laboratory tests, while CFD is the most used simulation method (68.6 % of simulation studies). Field studies are a minority, highlighting the limited implementation of PECS in real-world scenarios. Simulations are cost effective in rapidly prototyping and developing PECS. However, the insights they provide into PECS performance are limited by either model resolution constraints or high complexity. Comfort evaluations do not consider individual occupant differences nor behavior inherent to PECS. It is through experiments that knowledge can be gained on realistic occupant responses. However, they can be resource intensive and require careful planning. This review provides best practice guidelines to assist researchers in improving quality reporting of their methods.

Personalised Environmental Control Systems (PECS) enable occupants to locally adjust environmental parameters without affecting others. Rooted in the fields of thermal and air quality management, this approach is key for enhancing satisfaction and well-being in the built environment by empowering occupants to control their immediate surroundings. Moreover, it offers energy-saving potential by optimizing conditions in targeted areas rather than across the entire environment. Within the framework of the IEA EBC Annex 87, the concept was explored for the first time in the acoustic domain. After defining Acoustic PECS, a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines was conducted to unpack (1) technologies in the literature aligning with this concept; (2) their impact on occupants; and (3) current limitations. The literature search, conducted on Scopus, Web of Science, APA, and PubMed, included field or laboratory studies assessing systems enabling local acoustic control in settings that are relevant for office environments. Review papers, medical device studies, and reports without insights on occupant impact were excluded. Thirty-eight studies were selected, covering active and passive systems, building-attached, furniture-integrated, and wearable devices. The qualitative analysis highlighted potential positive effects in challenging acoustic environments, including reduced annoyance, improved work performance, masking or cancellation of intrusive noises, and enhancements in short-term memory, among other benefits, despite existing technological and methodological limitations. The evidence collected is constrained by the limited number of identified studies and methodological gaps stemming from the relatively wide focus of the studies where such devices were investigated. The definition of Acoustic PECS provides a foundation for future research, guiding the development of these systems and fostering high-quality and consistent evidence of their impacts.