The application of analytic hierarchy process in daylighting performance assessment

Abstract

Daylighting is beneficial to humans and the environment. Various indicators have been proposed to evaluate its attributes. Studies on the weighting factors of these attributes are, however, sparse. This paper aims to develop a new daylighting performance assessment method by collecting the perceived importance of the attributes from occupants using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based on two equally important criteria – visual comfort and electric lighting energy saving potential. The study has two parts. In the first part, a general survey was conducted to verify the attributes affecting occupants’ visual comfort and their acceptance of not turning on electric lights in daylit cellular offices. Brightness on desktop, brightness on surroundings, uniformity on desktop, uniformity on surroundings and perceived glare from windows were found to be the attributes. In the second part, an AHP survey was conducted to examine the weights of importance of these five attributes. The results showed that they were important to daylighting performance in the order of brightness on desktop (31%), perceived glare from windows (23%), uniformity on desktop (19%), brightness on surroundings (16%) and uniformity on surroundings (11%). The findings of this study would help to develop a comprehensive performance-based daylighting assessment method in the future.

Keywords

Daylighting performance Environmental assessment Visual comfort Energy saving potential Analytic Hierarchy Process

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Reinhart C. Effects of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices. In: Proceedings of the ACEEE conference summer study on energy efficiency in buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 18--23 August 2002, pp.1–12.

Cuttle C. People and windows in workplaces. In: Proceedings of the people and physical environment research conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 9 June 1983, pp.203–212.

Heerwagen

. Lighting and psychological comfort. Light Design Appl 1986; 16: 47–51.

Veitch

Hine

Gifford

. End users’ knowledge, beliefs, and preferences for lighting. J Interior Des 1993; 19: 15–26.

Veitch

Gifford

. Assessing beliefs about lighting effects on health, performance, mood, and social behavior. Environ Behav 1996; 28: 446–470.

Fontoynont

. Perceived performance of daylighting systems: lighting efficacy and agreeableness. Sol Energy 2002; 73: 83–94.

BS 8206-2:2008. Lighting for buildings part 2: code of practice for daylighting, London, UK: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1992.

Littlefair PJ. Daylight availability for light controls. In: Proceedings of the CIBSE national lighting conference, Cambridge, UK, 16--18 April 1984, pp.215–233.

Love JA. The evolution of performance indicators for the evaluation of daylighting systems. In: Conference record of the annual meeting of the Industry Applications Society of the IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA, 4--9 October 1992, pp.1830–1836.

10.

Tregenza

. The daylight factor and actual illuminance ratios. Lighting Res Technol 1980; 12: 64–68.

11.

IESNA. The IESNA lighting handbook, 9th ed. New York: The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000.

12.

Longmore

. Daylighting a current view. Light Lighting 1975; 68: 113–119.

13.

Crisp VHC and Littlefair PJ. Average daylight factor prediction. In: Proceedings of the CIBSE national lighting conference, Cambridge, UK, 16--18 April 1984, pp.234–243.

14.

Alshaibani

. Average daylight factor for clear sky conditions. Lighting Res Technol 1997; 29: 192–196.

15.

CIBSE: . code for lighting, London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 2012.

16.

Parpairi

Baker

Steemers

Compagnon

. The luminance differences index: a new indicator of user preferences in daylit spaces. Lighting Res Technol 2002; 34: 53–68.

17.

Slater

Boyce

. Illuminance uniformity on desks: where is the limit? Lighting Res Technol 1990; 22: 165–174.

18.

Love

Navvab

. The vertical-to-horizontal illuminance ratio: a new indicator of daylighting performance. J Illum Eng Soc 1994; 23: 50–61.

19.

Baker

Fanchiotti

Steemers

. Daylighting in architecture: a European reference book. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, EU R 15006EN, 1993, London: James & James Ltd, 2001.

20.

Canter

. Environmental interaction: psychological approaches to our physical surroundings, London: Surrey University Press, 1975.

21.

Wienold

Christoffersen

. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy Build 2006; 38: 743–757.

22.

Hopkinson

. Glare from daylighting in buildings. Appl Ergon 1972; 3: 206–215.

23.

Nazzal

. A new daylight glare evaluation method: introduction of the monitoring protocol and calculation method. Energy Build 2001; 33: 257–265.

24.

Mui

Wong

. Acceptable illumination level for office occupants. Archit Sci Rev 2006; 49: 116–119.

25.

Mui

Wong

. Minimum acceptable noise level for office occupants. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 2006; 27: 249–254.

26.

Kanji

. 100 statistical tests, 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2006.

27.

Saaty

. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 1977; 15: 234–281.

28.

Saaty

. The analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

29.

Saaty

. Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decision Sci 1987; 18: 157–177.

30.

Saaty

. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 1990; 48: 9–26.

31.

Saaty

. The analytic hierarchy process – what it is and how it is used. Math Model 1987; 9: 161–176.

32.

Al-Harbi

KMA

. Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Proj Manage 2001; 19: 19–27.

33.

Chiang

Lai

. A study on the comprehensive indicator of indoor environment assessment for occupants’ health in Taiwan. Build Environ 2002; 37: 387–392.

34.

Wong

JKW

. Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Build Environ 2008; 43: 108–125.

35.

Lai

JHK

Yik

FWH

. Perceived importance of the quality of the indoor environment in commercial buildings. Indoor Built Environ 2007; 16: 313–321.

36.

Scholl

Manthey

Helm

Steiner

. Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison. Eur J Oper Res 2005; 164: 760–777.

37.

Teknomo K. Analytic hierarchy process tutorial, http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/index.html (accessed 15 March 2013).