The use of locally addressable dimmable lighting systems has been examined in 14 open-plan office buildings. This paper discusses user attitudes toward control systems and the luminous conditions they produce. The majority of users are satisfied with both the quantity and quality of light on their workstations and are generally positive towards systems. This is despite large numbers of them working in illuminances significantly below current CIBSE recommendations. This indicates a significant potential for energy saving, since increased personal control leads to the use of lower lighting levels without detriment to occupants’ perceived lighting quality and visual comfort.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Moore TA, Carter DJ, Slater AI.A field study of occupant controlled office lighting in offices. Lighting Res. Technol. 2002; 34: 191-205.
2.
Tiller D, Rea M.Prospects for differential scaling in lighting research. Proceedings of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference, Cambridge. London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 1990: 110-127.
3.
Boyce PR.Why daylight?Proceedings of Daylighting ’98. Ottawa, Canada1998: 359-366.
4.
Tregenza P, Romaya S, Dawe S, Heap L, Tuck B.Consistency and variation in preferences for office lighting. Lighting Res. Technol. 1974; 6: 205-211.
Loe DL, Mansfield KP, Rowlands E.Light patterns and their relevance to spatial appearance and the quality of the lit environment. Proceedings of the 22nd Session of the CIE, Melbourne, 1991: 41-44.
7.
Collins BL.Evaluation of the role of luminance distributions in occupant response to lighting. Proceedings of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference, Cambridge. London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 1990: 1-10.
8.
Berrutto V.Importance of wall illuminance on users satisfaction: pilot study on 73 office workersProceedings of 8th European Lighting Conference Amsterdam, 1997: 82-101.
9.
Veitch JR, Newsham GR.Preferred luminous conditions in open plan offices: implications for lighting quality recommendations. Proceedings of the 25th Session of the CIE, Warsaw, 1999; 1: 4-6.
10.
Shepherd AJ, Julian WG, Purcell AT.Surface luminances and gloom. Lux Europa ‘89 The 6th European Lighting Conference, Budapest, 1989: 31-41.
11.
Flynn JE, Spencer TJ, Martyniuck O, Hendrick C.The effect of light on human judgement and behaviour. J. Illumin. Eng. Soc. 1973; 3: 87-94.
12.
Building Use Studies Ltd (1993) summarised in Leaman A Dissatisfaction and office productivity. Facilities1995; 13: 13-19.
13.
Bordass WT, Leaman AJ, Willis STP. Control strategies for building services: the role of the user. Proceedings of CIB Conference on Buildings and the Environment. Watford: Building Research Establishment, 1994.
14.
Harrison RV.Person-environment fit and job stress. In Cooper CL, Payne R, editors. Stress at work. Chichester: Wiley, 1978.
15.
Veitch JA, Newsham GR.Consequences of the perception and exercise of control over lighting. Proceedings of the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, USA, 1998.
16.
Tenner AD.Acceptance and preference of illuminance in offices. Lux Europa ‘97 The 8th European Lighting Conference, Amsterdam, 1997: 131-143.
17.
Begemann S, van den Beld GJ, Tenner A.Daylight, artificial light and people, part 3: visual and biological responses. Proceedings of CIBSE National Lighting Conference, Bath. London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 1996: 141-146.
