The article presents the results of a laboratory study conducted at Shanghai Tongji University. The study compares participants’ mood and task performance between naturally-lit and artificially-lit environments, with a view to identify negative impacts, such as lighting variation and temperature asymmetry caused by dynamic natural light. It was observed that the mood change in the naturally-lit environment was more significant, especially the decrease of positive mood, than in the artificially-lit environment. For the subjects in the naturally-lit environment, performance scores decreased with increase in the light intensity and temperature asymmetry. Based on the study results, suitable daylighting design was recommended for classrooms or offices.
HeerwagenJHOriansGH. Adaptations to windowlessness: a study of the use of visual decor in windowed and windowless offices. Environ Behav1986; 18: 623–639.
2.
VeitchJAGiffordR. Assessing beliefs about lighting effects on health, performance, mood, and social behavior. Environ Behav1996; 28: 446–470.
3.
BoubekriM. Appraisal of the lighting conditions in an office building: results of a survey. Indoor Built Environ1995; 4: 162–169.
4.
BoubekriMHaghighatF. Windows and environmental satisfaction: a survey study of an office building. Indoor Built Envir1993; 2: 164–172.
5.
YunGYShinJYKimJT. Influence of window views on the subjective evaluation of discomfort glare. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20: 65–74.
6.
BoubekriM. An argument for daylighting legislation because of health. J Hum Environ Syst2004; 7: 51–56.
7.
LaurentinCBerruttoVFontoynontM. Effect of thermal conditions and light source type on visual comfort appraisal. Light Res Technol2000; 32: 223–233.
8.
ISO 7730:2005. Moderate thermal environments-determination of the PMV-PPD indices and specification of the conditions of thermal comfort, Geneva: International Standard Organisation, 2005.
9.
KaplanR. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environ Behav2001; 33: 507–542.
10.
KaplanS. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Environ Psychol1995; 15: 169–182.
11.
HuaYOswaldAYangX. Effectiveness of daylighting design and occupant visual satisfaction in a LEED Gold laboratory building. Build Environ2011; 46: 54–64.
12.
BoubekriM. Daylighting, architecture and health: building design strategies, Oxford: Architectural Press, 2008.
13.
GouZLauSSYShenJ. Indoor environmental satisfaction in two LEED offices and its implications in green interior design. Indoor Built Environ2012; 21: 503–514.
14.
HwangTKimJT. Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20: 75–90.
15.
KimWKimJT. Effect of background luminance on discomfort glare in relation to the glare source size. Indoor Built Environ2010; 19: 175–183.
16.
KimWKimJT. The scope of the glare light source of the window with non-uniform luminance distribution. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20: 54–64.
17.
KimWKimJT. The variation of the glare source luminance according to the average luminance of visual field. Indoor Built Environ2012; 21: 98–108.
18.
VeitchJAStokkermansMGMNewshamGR. Linking lighting appraisals to work behaviors. Environ Behav2013; 45(2): 198–214.
19.
BoubekriMHullivRBBoyerLL. Impact of window size and sunlight penetration on office workers' mood and satisfaction: a novel way of assessing sunlight. Environ Behav1991; 23: 474–493.
20.
WangNBoubekriM. Design recommendations based on cognitive, mood and preference assessments in a sunlit workspace. Light Res Technol2011; 43: 55–72.
21.
HuangLZhuYOuyangQCaoB. A study on the effects of thermal, luminous, and acoustic environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices. Build Environ2012; 49: 304–309.
22.
ClausenGWyonD. The combined effects of many different indoor environmental factors on acceptability and office work performance. HVAC&R Res2008; 14: 103–113.
23.
PellerinNCandasV. Effects of steady-state noise and temperature conditions on environmental perception and acceptability. Indoor Air2004; 14: 129–136.
24.
WatsonD. Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Pers Soc Psychol1988; 54: 1020–1030.
25.
WatsonDClarkLA. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Pers Soc Psychol1988; 54: 1063–1070.
26.
WatsonDTellegenA. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychol Bull1985; 98: 219–235.
27.
ClarkLAWatsonD. Mood and the mundane: relations between daily life events and self-reported mood. Pers Soc Psychol1998; 54: 296–308.
28.
RussellJA. A circumplex model of affect. Pers Soc Psychol1980; 39: 1161–1178.
29.
IgorK. Effects of indoor lighting on mood and cognition. Environ Psychol1995; 15: 39–51.
