The aim of this field study was to explore the effects of a light reduction strategy on various qualitative and quantitative outdoor lighting quality criteria.
Background
Several outdoor lighting quality criteria have been highlighted in previous work related to perception and evaluation from pedestrians. Previous studies revealed that a decrease of horizontal illuminance impacts criteria, and that individual moderators need to be considered.
Method
70 participants had to walk on different footpaths with a reduced luminous flux at night. They completed a questionnaire and tasks about perception and evaluation of outdoor lighting quality.
Results
The results highlight an effect of the luminous flux and/or footpath on each criterium excepted discomfort from glare. A reduced luminous flux of 50% increases perceived visibility, visual acuity, and overall lighting quality compared to a flux at 10%. Differences in layout impact perceived visibility, perceived safety and overall lighting quality. Women have a lower perceived safety score than men, which is reflected in both quantitative and qualitative content. Elderly people have poorer visual acuity and mention brightness and darkness less often when describing the footpaths.
Conclusions
Through the mixed quantitative and qualitative approach conducted, the results confirm the impact of the lighting levels reduction on outdoor lighting criteria and are closely dependent on the context and location chosen.
Applications
Taking into account the individual variability in decision-making processes could help local authorities to conduct policies of light reduction to limit the impact on the environment and to adapt urban lighting to everyone.
BegemannS. H. A.van den BeldG. J.TennerA. D. (1997). Daylight, artificial light and people in an office environment, overview of visual and biological responses. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20(3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00053-4
2.
BoomsmaC.StegL. (2014). Feeling safe in the dark: Examining the effect of entrapment, lighting levels, and gender on feelings of safety and lighting policy acceptability. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512453838
BoyceP. R.EklundN. H.HamiltonB. J.BrunoL. D. (2000). Perceptions of safety at night in different lighting conditions. Lighting Research and Technology, 32(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032710003200205
BrémondR.ObeinG. (2025). Tuning the spectrum of outdoor light sources to the ambient spectrum. Sustainability, 17(19), 8921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198921
7.
BrownE.OptomB. (2019). Anxiety, distress, and the visual process. Optometry & Visual Performance, 7(2), 71–83.
8.
BulloughJ.SnyderJ.KieferK. (2020). Impacts of average illuminance, spectral distribution, and uniformity on brightness and safety perceptions under parking lot lighting. Lighting Research and Technology, 52(5), 626–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153519875171
9.
BurttH. E. (1916). The effect of uniform and non-uniform illumination upon attention and reaction-times, with especial reference to street illumination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071640
10.
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE). (2019). CIE 236:2019: Lighting for pedestrians: A summary of empirical data. https://doi.org/10.25039/TR.236.2019
11.
European Commission. (2023). Light pollution: Mitigation measures for environmental protection. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/906521
12.
FotiosS.ChealC. (2007). Lighting for subsidiary streets: Investigation of lamps of different SPD. Part 1-Visual Performance. Lighting Research and Technology, 39(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153507078146
13.
FotiosS.ChealC. (2009). Obstacle detection: A pilot study investigating the effects of lamp type, illuminance and age. Lighting Research and Technology, 41(4), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153509102343
14.
FotiosS.ChealC. (2013). Using obstacle detection to identify appropriate illuminances for lighting in residential roads. Lighting Research and Technology, 45(3), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153512444112
15.
FotiosS.JohanssonM. (2019). Appraising the intention of other people: Ecological validity and procedures for investigating effects of lighting for pedestrians. Lighting Research and Technology, 51(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153517737345
HaansA.de KortY. A. (2012). Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.05.006
19.
HaoX.ZhangX.DuJ.WangM.ZhangY. (2022). Pedestrians’ psychological preferences for urban street lighting with different color temperatures. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), Article 971700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.971700
20.
HickcoxK. S.FotiosS.AbboushiB. K.MillerN. J. (2022). Correspondence: A new two-step approach for evaluating discomfort from glare. Lighting Research and Technology, 54(1), 91–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/14771535211071133
21.
HimschootE. A.CrumpM. C.BuckleyS.CaiC.LawsonS.WhiteJ.NewmanP.TaffB. D. (2024). Feelings of safety for visitors recreating outdoors at night in different artificial lighting conditions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 97(1), Article 102374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102374
22.
HölkerF.WolterC.PerkinE. K.TocknerK. (2010). Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(12), 681–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.007
JägerbrandA. K.BouroussisC. A. (2021). Ecological impact of artificial light at night: Effective strategies and measures to deal with protected species and habitats. Sustainability, 13(11), 5991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115991
25.
JedonR.HaansA.de KortY. (2025). Pedestrians’ alertness and perceived environmental safety under non-uniform urban lighting. Global Environmental Psychology, 3(1), Article e13019. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.13019
26.
JohanssonM.PedersenE.Maleetipwan-MattssonP.KuhnL.LaikeT. (2014). Perceived outdoor lighting quality (POLQ): A lighting assessment tool. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 39(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.002
27.
JohanssonM.RosénM.KüllerR. (2011). Individual factors influencing the assessment of the outdoor lighting of an urban footpath. Lighting Research and Technology, 43(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153510370757
28.
KohkoS.AyamaM.IwataM.KyotoN.ToyotaT. (2015). Study on evaluation of LED lighting glare in pedestrian zones. Journal of Light and Visual Environment, 39(0), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.2150/jlve.IEIJ150000566
29.
LévêqueY.MassonR.FornoniL.MoulinA.Bidet-CauletA.CaclinA.DemarquayG. (2020). Self-perceived attention difficulties are associated with sensory hypersensitivity in migraine. Revue Neurologique, 176(10), 829–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2020.01.360
30.
LiuM.ZhangB.LuoT.LiuY.PortnovB. A.TropT.JiaoW.LiuH.LiY.LiuQ. (2022). Evaluating street lighting quality in residential areas by combining remote sensing tools and a survey on pedestrians’ perceptions of safety and visual comfort. Remote Sensing, 14(4), 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040826
MaoY.FotiosS.UttleyJ.GorjimahlabaniS. (2023). Do female pedestrians express a lower degree of reassurance than male pedestrians? And does road lighting help? In 30th Session of the CIE (pp. 616–623). https://doi.org/10.25039/x50.2023.OP007
33.
MarkvicaK.RichterG.LenzG. (2019). Impact of urban street lighting on road users’ perception of public space and mobility behavior. Building and Environment, 154(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.009
34.
MattssonP.Smidt-HartB. (2024). Coping with darkness: Residents’ experience of reduced outdoor lighting in neighbourhoods. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1320(1), Article 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1320/1/012003
35.
MolinerP.Lo MonacoG. (2017). Méthodes d’association verbale pour les sciences humaines et sociales [Verbal association methods for human and social sciences] (p. 190). Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
36.
NasarJ. L.BokharaeiS. (2017). Impressions of lighting in public squares after dark. Environment and Behavior, 49(3), 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515626546
37.
PelliD. G.RobsonJ. G.WilkinsA. J. (1988). The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clinical Vision Sciences, 2(3), 187–199.
PortnovB. A.FotiosS.SaadR.KligerD. (2022). Establishing optimal illuminance for pedestrian reassurance using segmented regression. Lighting Research and Technology, 56(3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/14771535221080649
40.
PortnovB. A.SaadR.TropT. (2021). Interactive scenario-based assessment approach of urban street lighting and its application to estimating energy saving benefits. Energies, 14(2), 378. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020378
41.
PortnovB. A.SaadR.TropT.KligerD.SvechkinaA. (2020). Linking nighttime outdoor lighting attributes to pedestrians’ feeling of safety: A interactive survey approach. PLoS One, 15(11), Article e0242172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242172
42.
RahmJ.JohanssonM. (2016). Walking after dark – A systematic literature review of pedestrians’ response to outdoor lighting (26th edn.). Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund.
43.
RahmJ.JohanssonM. (2018). Assessing the pedestrian response to urban outdoor lighting: A full-scale laboratory study. PLoS One, 13(10), Article e0204638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204638
44.
RahmJ.JohanssonM. (2021). Assessment of outdoor lighting: Methods for capturing the pedestrian experience in the field. Energies, 14(13), 4005. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14134005
45.
RahmJ.SternuddC.JohanssonM. (2021). “In the evening, I don’t walk in the park”: The interplay between street lighting and greenery in perceived safety. Urban Design International, 26(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-020-00134-6
46.
RajkhowaR. (2014). Light pollution and impact of light pollution. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(10), 861–867.
47.
RakonjacI.ZorićA.RakonjacI.MiloševićJ.MarićJ.FurundžićD. (2022). Increasing the livability of open public spaces during nighttime: The importance of lighting in waterfront areas. Sustainability, 14(10), 6058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106058
SaelensB. E.SallisJ. F.BlackJ. B.ChenD. (2003). Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1552–1558. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1552
50.
TavaresP.IngoD.AraújoL.PinhoP.BhusalP. (2021). Reviewing the role of outdoor lighting in achieving sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 13(22), Article 12657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212657
51.
TropT.Shoshany TavoryS.PortnovB. A. (2023). Factors affecting pedestrians’ perceptions of safety, comfort and pleasantness induced by public space lighting: A systematic literature review. Environment and Behavior, 55(1-2), 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165231163550
ViliūnasV.VaitkevičiusH.StanikūnasR.VittaP.BliumasR.AuškalnytėA.ŽukauskasA.PetrulisA.DabašinskasL.ŽukauskasA. (2014). Subjective evaluation of luminance distribution for intelligent outdoor lighting. Lighting Research and Technology, 46(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153513491760
54.
VillaC.BrémondR.Saint-JacquesE. (2016). Assessment of pedestrian discomfort glare from urban LED lighting. Lighting Research and Technology, 49(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153516673402
