A Proposal to Develop a Guideline

for Indoor Lighting in Independent

Senior Living Facilities

Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.

ABSTRACT
The objective of this research was to propose a lighting guideline. This was accom-
plished by comparing current lighting recommendations and standards for
independent senior living facilities with lighting conditions in existing projects. The
method used to develop this guideline was based on surveying a sample of senior
residents in independent living communities in Northeast Ohio. In addition to the
survey, onsite illuminance measurements were taken during the survey sessions. The
results obtained were compared with the IESNA (1993) general illuminance and
IESNA RP-28-98 (1998) guide for senior living environments. For most of the
activities and spaces investigated, the illuminance levels in independent living resi-
dences were closer to those recommended for the general population. For the types
of activities that require higher visual acuity, like reading, cooking, watching televi-
sion, and other hobbies, the measured amount of light is not sufficient. In most
cases, the lighting levels measured were lower than those recommended for senior
living facilities. The study proposed illuminance levels that combine the IESNA
illuminance recommendations and the elderly need to maintain a homelike, warm
and cozy indoor lighting environment.

Seniors Housing & Care Journal 77

Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.
INTRODUCTION
When the subject is older adults, the first image
that comes to mind is frail individuals in need of
assistance. But this picture has long since been a
thing of the past. There has been an increase in
longevity alongside a marked improvement in the
quality of life amongst the elderly (U.S. Census,
2003). This has, in turn, created a better atmosphere
for society to accept aging with dignity. In addition,
advances in medical sciences and treatments have
revolutionized technologies aimed at improving
quality of life. On the other hand, and according to
He, Sengupta, Velkoff, and DeBarros (2005), the
number of active population over age 65 represents a
significant portion of the workforce (18% male and
10% female in 2003). Despite these medical
advancements, architectural design has been slow to
respond to the healthier and more active lifestyles of
seniors. This is mostly evident in the lighting recom-
mendation where the emphasis has been on assisted
living facilities and those that provide care for
Alzheimer’s and dementia patients. Paradoxically,
many of the existing recommendations for the gen-
eral population can be applied to the healthy seniors
who live independently; some issues still need be
addressed with more depth for the independent liv-
ing population, as will be shown in this article.
BACKGROUND
Consequences of changes in sight
In a survey conducted by AARP in 1990, 86% of
the tested population expressed that they would like
to stay at their home and age in place. For that to
happen, home improvements should be made. From
Universal Design practices to compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), little is
shown regarding lighting design specifically target-
ing independent living facilities.
The question is: Why is it that sensory changes are
not addressed at the same level as physical changes?
78 2007 Volume 15 Number 1
Some physical changes are most obvious to the
observer. The ability to walk and hold onto objects as
well as the limited mobility and weakening of
strength can be easily observed and documented;
however, visual, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory
systems are “personal” perceptions and often individ-
uals are not aware of these changes or are adapting to
them as they occur. There is, however, ample medical
research on sight loss in the elderly, but this research
does not easily reach those who design and service
the target population or even the individuals who
live in their own homes. There is not a strong multi-
disciplinary communication device to make these
connections.
In addition, missing from the current lighting
design guidelines for independent living facilities are
considerations for common visual degradation and
their consequences on daily lives of the elderly.
Macular degeneration can affect up to 40% of the
elderly population; glaucoma affects a smaller per-
centage of the elder population (about 8% to 15.9 %)
(Carvalho, Monteir, Isaac, Shiroma, & Amoral,
2004; FIFARS, 2005). A third common visual
degeneration is diabetic retinopathy. It afflicts
around 16.2% to 26% of the older adult population.
(Carvalho et al., 2004; FIFARS, 2005). Cataract is
the most common incidence in various races. It is
“the cause of 50% of cases of vision loss in whites,
African-Americans and Hispanics” (Gohdes,
Balamurugan, Larsen, & Maylahn, 2005). These
optical changes interfere with the older adults’ lives
and diminish visual acuity, reduce contrast sensitiv-
ity, increase sensitivity to glare, blur vision, and
decline central and field vision (Boyce, 2003). These
are noticeable changes that are not often considered
when planning for a new home or simple adjustment
of existing homes.
Lighting needs
A study by Charness and Dijkstra (1999) investi-
gated the actual light conditions of private homes for
a population ranging from young to older adults.
 A Proposal to Develop a Guideline for Indoor Lighting in Independent Senior Living Facilities
Although the sample was very small and region spe-
cific, it gives us a first glance at the existing
conditions at home settings. The results found that
“lighting was often inadequate for effective reading.
Average light levels in homes (across all tasks) were
about 37cd/m2 during the day (median= 27 cd/m2)
and even lower at night (median= 15 cd/m2). In some
homes (particularly mobile homes), readings were
bellow 1 cd/m2” (p. 180). The study also found that
the elderly tend to overcompensate (49 cd/m2) for
the diminution of light transmission through the
eyes during the day and undercompensate (27 cd/m2)
during the evening, as compared to a 20-year-old (14
cd/m2 and 15 cd/m2, respectively); however, neither
was receiving enough light for reading tasks.
The study showed that light has been deficient
throughout one’s entire life, especially at home. In a
phone interview with Eunice Noell-Waggoner, pres-
ident of The Center of Design for an Aging Society,
she mentioned that although much is being done to
improve the independence of the “experienced gen-
eration,” lighting corrections have been one of the
last changes done to environments. The fact that
individuals are accustomed to lighting below recom-
mended levels in homes from adolescence to old age
adds to the lack of importance given to this subject.
The senior living market, as a general design field, is
moving toward a homelike design concept and away
from institutionalized environments. It is based on
the deinstitutionalization of independent living
facilities through enhancement of living experience,
thus achieving a better quality of life for the elderly.
The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) stip-
ulates in a publication focused on lighting and visual
environments for senior living facilities (IESNA PR-
28-98) that “It is estimated that a ‘normal’
65-year-old requires about 2.5 times more task con-
trast light than a 20-year-old to see equally well”
(IESNA, 1998). This statement does not represent
the realm of sight degeneration occurring in elders
nor the different type of activities performed by
them. As will be seen further in this article, the sug-
gested illuminance levels from IESNA PR-28-98 do
not reflect the residential needs of the independent
elderly living, but rather of institutional environments.
Design issues and aging conditions
In 2003, the U.S. population above age 65 was
more than 17%; the projection for 2030 is 20% of
total population (FIFARS, 2005). Today’s burden in
Medicare is high, and recent evidence showed that,
“…independent living has consistently been shown
to be a cost-effective mechanism for enabling dis-
abled people to access high quality support, which
minimizes choice and control at equivalent or often,
living are, on average, 30 to 40% cheaper than equiv-
alent services provided by residential service
providers” (Smith, 2006).
Considering that the average age for moving into
communities that provide a wide range of services to
those in need is the late 70s to early 80s, we have a
great market range of older adults who would take
advantage of the physical changes in their home
environment. How can environment changes be
accomplished? Some outreach programs have been
at the edge of advising older adults in changes nec-
essary to fulfill their new requirements.
Unfortunately, these programs, mostly non-profit
organizations, cannot reach a large segment of the
target population. The lack of a specific governmen-
tal organization that could “spread the word” makes
it difficult to reach many people.
Other concerns come into play for those who
change from their original home to communities or
homes designed simply for “65-plus.” The market is
ruled by developers that are not yet ready to comply
with elder’s needs (Belser & Weber, 1995;
Gilberbloom & Mullins, 1995; Gold, 1991;
Grayson, 1991). The products available in the gen-
eral market are hardly suitable for the elderly
population. This does not necessarily mean that all
new homes should have ramps, grab bars, and other
features, but it should be feasible to change and
adapt according to the resident’s needs. They should
have products with basic features, such as wider cor-
ridors (four feet), larger door openings (three feet),
Seniors Housing & Care Journal 79
Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.

lever door knobs, accessible height for electrical utes to measure the actual illuminance levels at the
plugs and switches, as well as enough light levels or rooms/spaces and outside. The questionnaire was a
possibilities to add light fixtures or increasing output series of inquiries relating to:
if necessary. This product would be appealing not • Age range and gender
only to the 65-plus range, but also to adults who • Existence of serious visual problems, such as
would like more space and amenities that could cataracts, macular degeneration, and glaucoma in
make their lives easier. order to understand the types of activities per-
formed by the elderly, understand their
METHODOLOGY relationship to the illuminance found in their
homes, and compare to existing statistical data
A bibliographic and literature search was per-
• Daily activities (in and outside their homes) to
formed to survey the existing data available on
verify how often activities that required special
independent living seniors, consequences of the
task light or visual acuity were performed during
aging sight, and existing guidelines for and refer-
the day and how frequently they were performed
ences to illuminance levels for these subjects. The
• Favorite room in the house to understand what
result of the literature review was used in the articu-
elements in the room that made them most com-
lation of the research objectives and the development
fortable
of the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was
• Frequency and type of cooking subjects per-
pre-tested and further refined, which produced the
formed, in order to verify kitchen use
final survey document used in the research. The sur-
• Television usage patterns, i.e., location, lighting
vey was conducted and data collected from
conditions, natural or electric lighting, day and at
volunteers were compiled and analyzed. The
night, whether drapes are drawn or not, and glare
obtained lighting response data were then compared
from any light source
with existing illuminance guidelines. The result of
Illuminance measurements were taken at the area
the comparison and analysis of the data produced the
where activities were conducted. The areas of inter-
proposed guideline.
est were primarily the kitchen and living room area,
The data collected involved general personal infor-
where the researcher expected most of the frequent
mation, habits, existing sight degeneration
tasks to take place. The measurements were made
conditions, general information about the house,
with a Minolta Illuminance Meter, model T-10.
room preferences, observation of lighting conditions
A checklist also was part of the illuminance mea-
at task areas, and verification of illuminance accord-
surements. It encompassed the following observation
ing to the IESNA Lighting Handbook (1993)
and enumeration:
classification. The participants were approached
• Number of light fixtures in the rooms studied to
through contact with the senior community’s
understand how the room was lit and how it
designer (architect), thereafter volunteers were
affected the illuminance levels and distribution
selected by their site’s administrative personnel.
illuminance
Other volunteers were found within a general com-
• Types of lamps used (incandescent and fluores-
munity advertisement in local community papers,
cent), for what types of activities they were used,
recreation centers, and churches.
the room in which they were frequently present,
Questionnaire and their influence on the measured illuminance
The questionnaire took approximately 15 to 20 • General surface color of the room (light, medium,
minutes of interview time followed by 10 to 15 min- and dark) to understand the balance between
light absorption, amount of light available in the

80 2007 Volume 15 Number 1

 A Proposal to Develop a Guideline for Indoor Lighting in Independent Senior Living Facilities
room and the activities performed
• Number and orientation of windows in the stud-
ied rooms to verify if it influences how electric
light is used and the interviewee’s reaction to
glare and brightness
• Time of day the interview was performed, to
relate how electric and natural light were used for
the activity performance
• Weather conditions and the amount of natural
light entering the rooms
The interviewer guided the interviews, and
answers that were impertinent to the study were dis-
carded. Although the questionnaire and checklist
were geared toward the living room and kitchen area,
adaptations and changes were made when intervie-
wees used other rooms as their daily activity area.
Participants
The volunteers of this research resided in two types
of communities: general residential and independent
living. They were recruited via personal contacts and
community advertisements. The majority (73% of 37
interviewees) were recruited through direct contact
by the researcher with the architect who designed
the community or buildings who then contacted the
site manager. The research took place in Northeast
Ohio. The homes visited were located outside
Cleveland’s urban area.
The sample included participants who live in their
own homes (although these are not the homes they
had while raising their children) and those who
reside in communities for the elderly at different
home types, such as apartment buildings (one or two
bedrooms) or attached cottages (one or two bed-
rooms). From this sample, the majority of the
buildings are 13 to 16 years old.
RESULTS
General surveyed population charac-
teristics
Thirty-seven (37) interviews were conducted. The
average age of the interviewees was 79.4 years. 65%
of the sample was women, and 22% of participants
still lived with their spouses. Despite the small num-
ber of the tested sample, the data collected were
reasonably representative of the general population.
Although it is statistically difficult to extrapolate
from such a small sample, the general findings in this
study are similar to Charness and Dijkstra’s (1999)
conclusions.
Visual Impairment in the tested
sample
When analyzing the age-related visual degenera-
tion, many volunteers either have cataracts (24%) or
have had them removed from one (27%) or both eyes
(19%). These data reasonably agree with U.S. data
where the prevalence of cataract for population 75 or
older is 50%, according to Kahn, Leibowitz, Ganley,
and colleagues (as cited by Quillen, 1999). The sec-
ond most frequent occurrence in the sample was
glaucoma (16%), followed by macular degeneration
(14%). The three impairments agree in their ranking
with Nusbaum (1999; as cited by U.S. Census, 2003).
Frequent Activities
When asked about their most frequent activities at
home, the majority mentioned reading (78%), fol-
lowed by watching television (49%) and use of
computer and Internet (43%). From the total inter-
viewees, 46% said they read with a high frequency
and 32% said they cook frequently. Community res-
idents did not need to cook one of their daily meals
since it was included in their service package. Those
living in homes outside senior communities have a
dynamic pattern of home cooking and outside din-
ing, not prevailing one or the other. The answers
verified the hypothesis that older adults spend most
of their time performing activities that would require
a decent amount of light. As shown by this sample,
most of the activities are at home, in an environment
that they can customize and control. Both the types
and level of engagement observed in this study
match the passive level of engagement observed in
Nolan, Grant & Nolan (1995).
Seniors Housing & Care Journal 81
Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.

Cooking Patterns that require visual acuity, but most often it was the
In regard to cooking patterns, few in the surveyed place where they would perform them.
sample (19%) have at least two meals they would
Ambiance Color
prepare from scratch at home, and 30% prepare at
For the physical environment, the majority (73%)
least one meal per day. The majority (68%) would
of the interviewees had their kitchen area predomi-
warm food in a microwave or smaller meals in toaster
nantly light in color. This classification was
ovens (e.g., a mix of pre-cooked food or frozen food).
determined by averaging colors of the countertop,
The second most frequent habit is to have a simple
floor, ceiling, wall, cabinets, and appliances.
breakfast with cereal or toast and/or a cold sandwich
Color intensity was evenly distributed throughout
and soup for lunch (51%).
the living rooms and other rooms named as favorite
Television Usage Patterns rooms. About 49% had an overall light color
The majority of the seniors interviewed watched ambiance, considering flooring, ceiling, walls, and
television at night. Their main sources of informa- furniture colors, and 51% had medium color
tion are newspapers and radio news. When watching ambiance. The most frequent elements that changed
television during the day, 41% left their blinds or the color palettes were rugs added to the rooms,
curtains open and 46% had no lights turned on. upholstered furniture, and the type of wood of their
When lights were on during the day, it was mostly millwork and furniture pieces.
due to the fact that the weather was not clear and
Architectural Differences
very little natural light came into the room or
Overall, there were differences between the newly
because they were performing other tasks at the same
built units and the older cottages at the same site or
time. At night, most interviewees kept their blinds
others visited off site. The new units had higher and
closed (49%); 86% who watched television during
more reflective ceilings as well as wider hallways and
the night had at least one light on. Fifty-four percent
doorways. There were ceiling lights in areas such as
of the interviewees did not have reflection on their
kitchens, living rooms, and bathrooms. All rooms
television screen when the lights were on. Most of
had a ceiling fan with dimmer control for the light.
those who had any type of reflection stated that it
Another difference was the amount and size of the
was not disturbing.
windows of the new construction. They were ori-
Favorite Room ented to take advantage of the natural light as well as
In general, 65% of the participants mentioned their outside views.
favorite room had the most comfortable furniture.
Light Fixtures
The second most frequent reason was its comfort
The most frequently used type of light fixture for
related to natural light (35%) and whether it pro-
ambient lighting was a table lamp. Most of the inter-
vided a view to the outside (24%). The majority
viewees (92%) used it to generate light for the ambiance
(65%) chose the living room as their favorite room in
and/or for specific tasks. A large portion of the inter-
their house, which had a feeling of comfort, coziness,
viewees (70%) used their ambient light (ceiling light) to
and familiarity.
light the overall room. This happened most often at the
It was not surprising to have the living room as the
kitchen and not at the living room, since the majority
preferred room in the house, since it is normally the
did not have general ceiling light at the living room.
largest space and it allows for different uses and
Only 41% of the interviewees actually had or used their
activities. As expected, the residents did not seem to
indirect under-cabinet light in the kitchen area.
have enough light in this ambiance to perform tasks

82 2007 Volume 15 Number 1

 A Proposal to Develop a Guideline for Indoor Lighting in Independent Senior Living Facilities

Exhibit 1. Summary of the Research Findings

General Television Usage Patterns: Nighttime
Total Interviews 37 Blinds and Curtains Closed 49%
Male 35% Lights On 86%
Female 65% Reflection from Light Sources
Visual Impairment Yes 24%
Cataract 24% No 54%
Cataract Removed (1 eye) 27% Ambiance Color: Kitchen
Cataract Removed (both eyes) 19% Light 73%
Glaucoma 16% Medium 27%
Macular Degeneration 14% Ambiance Color: Living Room and Others
Frequent Activities Light 49%
Reading 78% Medium 51%
Watching Television 49% Light Fixtures
Computer/Internet 43% Table Lamps 92%
Cooking Pattern Ceiling Lights 70%
Full Course Daily Under Cabinet Light 41%
(at least 2 warm meals from scratch) 19% Light Source
Full Course Mildly Often Incandescent Source 97%
(at least one meal from scratch) 30% Fluorescent Source 78%
Warm Foods (microwave/toaster ovens) 68% Weather Condition
Cold Foods (sandwiches/breakfast) 51% Cloudy/Partially Clouded 68%
Television Usage Patterns: Daytime Sunny 30%
Blinds and Curtains Open 41%
Lights Off 46%

Light Source classifying lighting levels for generic types of activi-

All but one subject (97%) used incandescent lamps
in the studied areas. In the kitchen area, 78% of the
interviewees had at least one fluorescent light.
Weather Condition
Most interviews were conducted in the afternoon.
In 68% of the days, the weather was cloudy or par-
tially cloudy. No interview took place at night. Only
30% of the days were sunny.
ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED
ILLUMINANCE DATA
In this section we will compare the measured illu-
minance levels to IESNA (1993), which focuses on
ties and to IESNA RP-28-98 guidelines/standards
that specifically suggest lighting levels in senior liv-
ing environments.
According to Charness et al. (1999) and
Kavanaugh and Tate (1996), the illuminance levels
for seniors should be at least 2.5 times higher than
that for a normal young adult in task areas. This ratio
is applied in IESNA RP-28-98, where 300 lux was
suggested for general lighting and 750 lux for task
light. In comparison, IESNA (1993) suggests 50-75-
100 lux range for general light for conversation,
relaxation, and entertainment and 200-300-500 for
reading books, magazines, and newspapers. The
higher values suggested in IESNA RP-28-98 may

Seniors Housing & Care Journal 83

Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.

Exhibit 2. Comparison between IESNA standards and Measured Illuminance Levels

Suggested IESNA levels for for Suggested illuminance levels Measured Data
Generic Indoor Activities* from IESNA RP-28-98**
Place/Task Illuminance Range (lux) Place/Task Range (lux) Place/Task Average
illuminance (lux)
General lighting Living room Living room
Conversation, relaxation, 50 75 100 General 300 General 76
and entertainment
Handcraft and hobbies
Ordinary tasks 200 300 500
Kitchen counter Kitchen Area Kitchen counter
Critical seeing 500 750 1000 Task 500 Task 297
Kitchen range Kitchen range
Difficult seeing 500 750 1000 Task 500 Task 291
Kitchen sink Kitchen sink
Difficult seeing 500 750 1000 Task 500 Task 360
Kitchen
General 300 General lighting 355
Reading Living Room Reading
Books, magazines, 200 300 500 Task 750 Task 609
and newspapers
Desk Desk
Primary task plane, study 500 750 1000 Task 687
Sources: *The IESNA Lighting Handbook Reference & Application by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
Eighth Edition, 1993. **IESNA RP-28-98 Recommended Practice for Lighting and Visual Environment for Senior Living by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1998.

have considered the need for assistance and the
amount of light necessary for special tasks performed
in these areas, such as nursing care or third-party
care.
Another interesting observation is that general
kitchen lighting in IESNA RP-28-98 is in the mid-
dle range of the IESNA (1993), suggesting that
there is no real need for a higher illuminance for the
general tasks performed in the kitchen. This contra-
diction may be explained by the fact that the IESNA
RP-28-98 suggestions are geared more toward insti-
tutional senior living facilities instead of independent
senior residences and the daily activities that occur in
them (Exhibit 2).
When comparing IESNA standards to the actual
illuminance levels measured in the study in Exhibit
2, the general living room light, kitchen task light,
and reading task light were consistently lower than
that suggested by IESNA RP-28-98. In comparison
to IESNA (1993), however, the lighting levels for
general lighting and desk lighting were within the
suggested range.
Based on the measured illuminance levels in the
study and those suggested by Charness and Dijkstra
(1999), it became evident that IESNA RP-28-98
might have been designed for a specific institutional
environment and it may not be adequate for inde-
pendent living.
General Light (Living Room)
The collected data suggest that independent living

84 2007 Volume 15 Number 1

 A Proposal to Develop a Guideline for Indoor Lighting in Independent Senior Living Facilities
seniors attempt to maintain indoor environments
not unlike the ones to which they were accustomed.
The high levels of illuminance required in IESNA
PR-28-98 do not seem to meet their perception of
homelike environments. The low illuminance levels
measured in living room areas seem to represent per-
sonal preferences to residential environment. For
example, the average illuminance levels measured in
the study (76.4 lux) is within the IESNA (1993)
higher range (75 to 100 lux) in contrast with the
institutional requirements of 300 lux suggested by
IESNA RP-28-98.
Kitchen
For tasks performed in counter, sink, and range
areas that require high visual acuity, measured data
showed similar lower values than those recom-
mended levels for elderly living facilities. The
average illuminance level measured were 297, 291,
360 lux at the counter, range, and sink, respectively.
All results were considerably lower than the 500 lux
recommended.
The general average illuminance measured at the
kitchen (355 lux), however, was a little higher than
the suggested IESNA RP-28-98 of 300 lux. From all
the measurements taken in the study, the kitchen is
the closest average value to the suggested illumi-
nance by IESNA RP-28-98. It might be attributed
to the utilitarian nature of the kitchens and the type
of general kitchen light chosen. Fluorescent fixtures
are normally used in translucent fixtures to evenly
distribute light. Since fluorescents are more efficient
than incandescent fixtures and the majority of the
kitchens are very compact, most spaces visited in this
study were similarly fitted. Hence, we conclude that
if we consider the frequency that the room is used in
independent living environments, these levels meet
the visual acuity needs of the seniors.
Other Rooms
The last set of measurements were taken in rooms
used for special tasks like reading, computer use,
sewing, art crafting, or other spare-time activities
that were frequent in the subjects’ daily lives. These
“special” areas were adequately illuminated. The
average measured illuminance was higher than that
of the recommended reading light levels in the gen-
eral standards and within the suggested levels in
IESNA RP-28-98. The average reading was 687 lux.
SUGGESTED GUIDELINE
Based on the research, the authors suggest a hybrid
standard that combines the requirements of general
populations and those required for the elderly in
institutional settings. The suggested guideline is
based on the analysis of the two existing guidelines,
IESNA (1993), IESNA (1998), and the sample
studied in this research.
This guideline is intended for designers, caretakers,
the independent seniors, and all others involved in
providing housing needs for the independent
seniors. The objective of this guideline is to suggest
more appropriate illuminance levels so seniors can
carry out their daily activities and maintain the cozy
illuminance environments, while minimizing the risk
of minor injuries. It could be argued that the RP-28-
98 guideline was designed for institutional
environments and was not meant for the indepen-
dent seniors who wish to maintain their indoor
environment without major alterations or institu-
tionalization. The guideline also takes into account
the ratio between task and general light. In addition,
we recommend optimizing efficiency and control of
brightness contrasts (luminance) by suggesting a
ratio of contrast of 1:5 (Baucom & Grosch, 1999) to
be used to balance the illuminance between task and
general light in the ambiance.
General suggestions
1. To accommodate for the increasing need to illu-
minate, designers should consider flexibility
early in the process through pre-wiring for
under-cabinet lighting or over-the-sink lighting
and including enough electric receptacles to add
table lamps and other light fixtures in the rooms.
Seniors Housing & Care Journal 85
Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.

Exhibit 3. Suggested Illuminance Levels for Independent Living Facilities

Suggested IESNA levels for for Suggested illuminance levels Suggested Guideline
Generic Indoor Activities* from IESNA RP-28-98**
Place/Task Illuminance Range (lux) Place/Task Range (lux) Place/Task Illuminance
Range (lux)
General lighting Living room Living room
Conversation, relaxation, 50 75 100 General 300 General 75 125
and entertainment
Handcraft and hobbies
Ordinary tasks 200 300 500
Kitchen counter Kitchen Area Kitchen counter
Critical seeing 500 750 1000 Task 500 Task 400 500
Kitchen range Kitchen range
Difficult seeing 500 750 1000 Task 500 Task 400 500
Kitchen sink Kitchen sink
Difficult seeing 500 750 1000 Task 500 Task 450 500
Kitchen
General 300 General lighting 300 400
Reading Living Room Reading
Books, magazines, 200 300 500 Task 750 Task 500 750
and newspapers
Desk Desk
Primary task plane, study 500 750 1000 Task 500 750
Sources: *The IESNA Lighting Handbook Reference & Application by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
Eighth Edition, 1993. **IESNA RP-28-98 Recommended Practice for Lighting and Visual Environment for Senior Living by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1998.
Please note in the suggested ranges activities that require high level of visual acuity and consequently need higher levels of light such as
carpentry, workshop work, cross stictching, quilting etc. The minimum necessary would be the highest value of the proposed range (750 lux)
and more light could be added according to the senior’s eye degeneration and needs.

For living areas, the light addition is generally
achieved by table lamps. Interviewees com-
mented that the flexibility in this room could be
accomplished by the placement of electric recep-
tacles in strategic places to allow more layout
flexibility and better use of the room.
2. Encourage use of dimmers to control brightness
during the day and night as needed by the type
of activities performed in the area and the
amount of natural light in the surrounding envi-
ronment.
3. In addition to accessibility, kitchen designers
should take into account several factors such as
activity spatial requirements, workspaces, and
circulation within the kitchen itself. In general,
kitchens should be as small as needed to mini-
mize travel time between different tasks and to
increase illuminance level with fewer light fix-
tures. The residents need to have access to
appropriately designed and well-lit counter
spaces.
4. Explore light types with color characteristics
aimed at providing warm and efficient interior
ambiance.

86 2007 Volume 15 Number 1

 A Proposal to Develop a Guideline for Indoor Lighting in Independent Senior Living Facilities
Guideline of Illuminance Levels in
Independent Living Facilities
A summary of suggested values can be found in
Exhibit 3; however, the following is detailed
space/activity guideline for illuminance levels.
The illuminance for living rooms or general rooms
should range from 75 to 125 lux. The ratio between
the task and the ambient light illuminance should
not be in excess of 1:5.
For task-intensive activities, wherever they are per-
formed, we suggest a range of 500 to 750 lux,
depending on how much light the activity requires;
however, for activities requiring high level of visual
acuity for task-intensive performance, the minimum
illuminance we recommend is 750 lux or higher
according to the senior’s eye degeneration and needs.
The general light for the kitchen should be from
300 to 400 lux and 400 to 500 lux for the under cab-
inet. It should be noted that the sink area requires
higher illuminance because it is a specialized activity
that required higher level of visual acuity. Therefore,
illuminance in this area should be in the higher end
of this range (450 lux to 500 lux). For the range
(stove) area, the suggested illuminance would be the
same (400 to 500 lux). The contrast ratio between
the general and task illuminance in the kitchen
should not be higher than 1:2 to avoid glare.
REMARKS
The most important outcome of this research is
finding a gap in the design knowledge that is in need
of further development and research. The subject
was selected because of the lack of information in
relation to the older adults that are still independent
and living either at home, a senior living community,
or at another type of community.
The study concluded that the standard for senior
living (IESNA RP-28-98) is more appropriate for
institutional environments, which do not coincide
with independent seniors’ quest for homelike envi-
ronments, thus establishing need to develop a hybrid
lighting guideline that combines the ambient and
residential experience with the levels of illuminance
needed to compensate for the visual loss seniors
encounter during aging.
The study also demonstrated the life patterns of
independent seniors. These activities consisted most
frequently of reading, watching television, using a
computer, cooking, and a considerable amount of
volunteering. Many of these activities require some
level of precision and consequently require higher
levels of light. In the kitchen, residents outside senior
communities lacked under-cabinet lighting that
enhanced the illuminance level at the task area. Since
they represented the largest populations who cooked
their meals from scratch, they are definitely the sec-
tor who needs this amenity.
Throughout all residences in the sample, the pre-
dominant light source was the incandescent light.
The reason for this was the warmer color of light.
The fluorescent light is still perceived as a cold light
that represents institutional and business light.
Although there are compact fluorescent bulbs that
mimic the color of incandescent lamps to some
extent, they are rarely used for general ambiance in
the house, with exception of the kitchen’s general
light. The majority of light fixtures used to light the
ambiance, except kitchen, were table lamps. They
were present even in homes that had ceiling fixtures.
Interviewees use them for general ambient lighting
and for task light.
The illuminance data were found to be below the
recommended by IESNA RP-28-89. The exception
is the kitchen’s general light that was found to be
higher than the suggested. The majority of the other
illuminance levels fit within some range of the
IESNA (1993), prevailing in the lower suggested
range. As seen in the data analysis, the suggested
guideline of illuminance levels in independent living
facilities is a hybrid of both IESNA (1993) for gen-
eral illuminance and IESNA RP-28-98 for senior
living facilities. Thus, the equilibrium between the
homelike and the need for more illuminance in con-
sequence of aging eyes has to be met to enhance
elders’ experience and independence in their homes.
Seniors Housing & Care Journal 87
Mariju Wille, Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation
to architects James Herman, and Cornelia Hodgson,
and Eunice Noell-Waggoner, president of the Center
of Design for an Aging Society, for their support and
guidance throughout the research work. We also
would like to extend our gratitude to all professionals
involved in the visited facilities and the volunteers,
who wish to remain anonymous, for their help.
DEFINITIONS
Ambiance: A term that describes the visual environ-
ment in the room/space.
Contrast: The ratio between brightness or lumi-
nance at task light and the immediate surroundings,
or between the immediate surroundings and the
background light within the field of view. High con-
trast leads to failure of the eye to adapt and
consequently to glare and reduction in visual acuity.
General light: A term that describes lighting condi-
tions not easily distinguished from a single source,
but rather a product of several sources.
IESNA 1993: The term refers to Illuminating
Engineering Society of America lighting handbook
and represents the reference to the lighting industry.
The handbook is in turn referenced in the interna-
tional building standards.
IESNA RP-28-98: A publication of the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
recommending practices for lighting and visual envi-
ronment for senior living.
Illuminance: A term used to describe density of
light incident on a surface. Units used in English
system is footcandles (fc) and metric is lux.
Luminance: Density of light emitted from a source
(cd/m2).
Lux: A unit of measurement of illuminance and
represents the density of light in one square meter (1
lux = 0.093 footcandles).
Ratio of task light to ambient light: A measure of
contrast between luminance or brightness of the task
and ambient lighting conditions.
88 2007 Volume 15 Number 1
Task light: Light directed toward a specific surface
to provide illumination for visual tasks.
REFERENCES
Baucom, A. H., & Grosch, R. J. (1996). Hospitality design for the
graying generation: Meeting the needs of a growing market. New
York: J. Wiley.
Belser, A. H., & Weber, J. A. (1995). Home builders’ attitudes
and knowledge of aging: The relationship to design for indepen-
dent living. In L. A. Pastalan (Ed.), Housing decisions for the
elderly: To move or not to move (pp. 123-138). New York:
Haworth Press.
Boyce, P. R. (2003). Human factors in lighting (2nd ed.). London,
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Carvalho, K.M., Monteir , G. B. M., Isaac, C. R., Shiroma, L.
O., & Amaral, M. S. (2004). Causes of low vision and use of
optical aids in the elderly. Revista Do Hospital Clínicas, 59(4),
157-160.
Charness, N., & Dijkstra, K. (1999). Age, luminance, and print
legibility in homes, offices, and public places. Human Factors,
41(2), 173-193.
Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics
(FIFARS). (2004). Older Americans 2004 : Key indicators of well-
being. Washington, DC : Federal Interagency Forum on Aging
Related Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S.G.P.O.
Gilderbloom, J. I., & Mullins Jr., R. L. (1995). Elderly housing
needs: An examination of the American Housing Survey.
International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 40(1), 57-
72.
Gilderbloom, J. I., & Markham, J. P. (1996). Housing modifica-
tion needs of the disabled elderly. Environment & Behavior,
28(4), 512-535.
Gohdes, D. M., Balamurugan, A., Larsen, B. A., & Maylahn, C.
(2005). Age-related eye diseases: An emerging challenge for
public health professionals. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2(3),
A:17.
Gold, M. (1991). Response to: Grayson P.J. The built environ-
ment: Rethinking the built environment independent living
environments for seniors and persons with disability.
Directions’91: A Workshop on Living Environment products for
Seniors and Persons with disability (pp. 37-40). Winnipeg,
MBARCOR Publication.
Grayson, P. J. The built environment: Rethinking the built envi-
ronment independent living environments for seniors and
persons with disability. Proceedings of Directions’91: A Workshop on
Living Environment products for Seniors and Persons with disabil-
ity (pp. 27-36). Winnipeg, MB: ARCOR Publication.
 A Proposal to Develop a Guideline for Indoor Lighting in Independent Senior Living Facilities

He, W., Sengupta, M., Velkoff V. A., & DeBarros, K. A. (2005).

65+ in the United States: 2005 Current population reports special
studies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National
Institute on Aging, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
and Statistics Administration, and U.S. Census Bureau.
IESNA. (1993). The IESNA lighting handbook: reference & appli-
cation (8th ed.). New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering
Society.
IESNA. (1998). IESNA RP-28-98: Recommended practice for
lighting and the visual environment for senior living. New York,
N.Y.: Illuminating Engineering Society.
Kahn, H. A., Leibowitz, H. M., Ganley, J., Kini M. M., Colton,
T., Nickerson, R. S., et al. (1977). The Framingham Eye Study
I: Outline and major prevalence findings. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 106, 17-32.
Kavanaugh, K. M., & Tate, B. (1996). Recognizing and helping
older persons with vision impairments. Geriatric Nursing, 17(2),
68-71.
Nusbaum, N. J. (1999). Aging and sensory senescence. Southern
Medical Journal, 92(3), 267-275.
Nolan, M., Grant, G., & Nolan, J. (1995). Busy doing nothing:
Activity and interaction levels amongst differing populations of
elderly patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 528-538.
Quillen, D. A. (1999). Common causes of vision loss in elderly
patients. American Family Physician, 60(1), 99-108.
Smith, K. (2006). The need for new housing design practices:
Age, disability, and independent living. Retrieved May 18, 2007,
from the University of Arkansas School of Architecture Studio
for Adaptable + Inclusive Design Website: http://uark.edu/
ua/studio/StudioAID2/content/essays%20and%20reports/The
%20Need%20for%20New%20Housing%20Design%20Practices
.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003) Expectation of life at birth, 1970 to
2003, and projections, 2005 and 2010. Retrieved December 2,
2006 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab /tables/
06s0096.xls

© 2007, National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing

& Care Industry
___________________________________________________

Mariju Wille
Dorsky, Hodgson, Parrish & Yue Architects
Cleveland, Ohio
E-mail: mariju@projexpert.com.br

Adil Sharag-Eldin, Ph.D., LEED A.P.

College of Architecture and Environmental Design
Kent State University
E-mail: asharage@kent.edu

Seniors Housing & Care Journal 89