Architectural Science Review

ISSN: 0003-8628 (Print) 1758-9622 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

Human factors in retail lighting design: an

experimental subjective evaluation for sales areas

Feride Şener Yılmaz

To cite this article: Feride Şener Yılmaz (2018) Human factors in retail lighting design: an
experimental subjective evaluation for sales areas, Architectural Science Review, 61:3, 156-170,
DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2018.1450725

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1450725

Published online: 15 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 101

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2018
VOL. 61, NO. 3, 156–170
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1450725

Human factors in retail lighting design: an experimental subjective evaluation for

sales areas
้ ที่การขาย
ปัจจัยด้านมนุ ษย์ ในการออกแบบแสงสว่างแบบขายปลีก: การประเมินผลแบบอัตนั ยเชิงทดลองสําหรับพืน
Feride Şener Yılmaz∗
Independent Scholar

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Lighting design has direct relations on space perception, visual stimulus, spatial cognition and user Received 7 July 2017
behaviour in retail environments. Quantitative and qualitative perspectives in retail lighting design help Accepted 1 March 2018
to attract the customers, play a role on the time spent in the retail environments, experience the built envi- KEYWORDS
ronment and displayed merchandise and create a suitable corporate identity. This study seeks to broaden Lighting design; retail
the body of research on relationships between human preferences and retail lighting design and aims environments; retail lighting;
to investigate the impact of human factors in retail lighting design by means of an experimental subjec- visual comfort; human
tive approach for sales areas, establishing a connection between luminous environment perception, price preferences
perception and quality perception of displayed products. This research emphasizes the necessity of an
appropriate lighting design strategy for retail environments and its impact on customer’s space perception.

Introduction
The influence of the retail physical environments on consumer
behaviour and preferences contributes to a growing body of
literature (Ashley, Ligas, and Chaudhuri 2010; Baker, Levy, and
Grewal 1992; Brengman and Willems 2009; Gilboa and Rafaeli
2003; Hunter and Mukerji 2011; Luomala 2003; Mattila and Wirtz
2001; Ray and Chiagouris 2009; Turley and Milliman 2000; Wake-
field and Baker 1998). Lighting is an effective atmospheric stim-
ulus for retail environments that have the potential to influ-
ence emotions, mood, cognition, atmosphere, spatial percep-
tions and consumer behaviour (Andreu et al. 2006; Berman and
Evans 1995; Furnham and Milner 2013; Rayburn and Voss 2013).
Many interdisciplinary studies investigate the effect of lighting
together with other environmental variables in retail environ-
ments (Foster and McLelland 2015; Kumar and Kim 2014; Martel-
lotta et al. 2016; Mohan, Sivakumaran, and Sharma 2012; Zhao,
Kim, and Srebric 2015, Martellotta, Cannavale, D’Alba, Crociata,
and Simone, 2016).
To achieve a visually comfortable environment and create a
suitable corporate identity and communication, it is essential to
form a clear and integrated lighting design strategy at the early
design stage of retail environments and multiple design objec-
tives must be handled together by the lighting designer consid-
ering distinct aspects of lighting (Society of Light and Lighting
2009). Lighting systems should be designed to create an atmo-
sphere emphasizing the store’s character, make a desirable place
in which to shop, permit accurate examination of the features
and qualities of the merchandise and minimize glare problems
(IESNA 2011). The European Standard ‘EN 12464-1 Light and
Lighting-Lighting of Work Places-Part 1: Indoor Work Places’
defines lighting requirements that should be followed in order
to obtain proper lighting solutions and this standard specifies
requirements for retail spaces and their associated areas in terms
of quantity and quality of illumination (EN 12464-1, 2011).
Lighting design and space perception in retail
environments
Studies show that a suitable lighting design strategy can help
to create an atmosphere of excitement, induce positive mood,
make key approach areas safe and visible and guide the cus-
tomer’s eyes to key sales points (Smith 1989). The existing knowl-
edge about the relationship between lighting and mood reveal
that alterations in lighting conditions can yield to changes in
mood and emotional state of staff and customers (Furnham and
Milner 2013; Küller et al. 2007). In a study by Custers et al., the
contribution of lighting in evoking an atmosphere was investi-
gated and in this study, lighting attributes and interior qualities
were related to the perceived atmosphere (Custers et al. 2010).
Similarly, the influence of lighting on space perception and
product choice behaviour was investigated in an experimen-
tal study and results showed that different retail environment
characteristics could be obtained by the help of diverse lighting
strategies (Quartier 2011; Quartier, Vanrie, and Van Cleempoel
2014). Research of Lombana and Tonello also reveal the inter-
play between lighting and perceptual responses of participants
in retail environments (Lombana and Tonello 2017). Jin et al. con-
ducted a study in China focusing on subjective evaluations for
retail environments in terms of lighting perception and results
of this study underline the relationship between daylighting and
user satisfaction (Jin, Li, Kang and Kong 2017). Diverse lighting
concepts can also help to shape different images in terms of
brand identity for retail environments. Lighting can be used for
brand communication in order to define the image of a company

CONTACT Feride Şener Yılmaz ferideseneryilmaz@gmail.com

∗ Present address: Bahçeşehir Funda B30, 34488 Başakşehir Istanbul Turkey.

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


more clearly (Schielke 2010). According to the findings of an
experimental study, a studious lighting design is found effec-
tive for enabling vision and lighting is found to contribute to the
brand image (Schielke 2015).
Lighting design and product perception of price and
quality in retail environments
The relationship between lighting in retail environments and
product perception is identified in distinct studies (Areni and
Kim 1994; Marques, Cardoso, and Palma 2013; Park and Farr
2007; Reynolds-McIlnay, Morrin, and Nordfält 2017; Summers
and Hebert 2001). Areni and Kim suggested that lighting,
used as an environmental stimulus, could influence shopping
behaviour, and it was found to significantly affect the number
of items examined in retail environments (1994). Lighting was
also found positively effective on time spent in the retail envi-
ronments (Summers and Hebert 2001). In an effort to define
the relationship between lighting retrofit and product percep-
tion, Cuttle and Brandston found that sales increased when there
were higher illuminances and a more even light distribution in
the retail environments (1995). In another study by Boyce et al.,
the relationship between new and approved lighting system
on sales performance was investigated (1996). Inadequate light-
ing was reported to negatively affect the shopping experience
and result loss in sales (Baumstarck and Park 2010). In another
study, consumers were found to be positively influenced by an
adequate lighting strategy, highlighting the displayed merchan-
dise, which happened to increase the time spent in the retail
environment (Nell 2017).
Research suggests that consumers’ luminous environment
perception can also influence the perceived quality of displayed
products. Product selections in an environment with high illu-
minance were generally rated lower in quality than the same
product selections displayed in a dimmer environment (Babin,
Chebat, and Michon 2004; Baker, Levy, and Grewal 1992). It
is also common to observe that the colour appearance of the
light sources used in retail environments changed from cool to
warm as the shop profile moved from low budget to exclusive
(Ticleanu, Littlefair, and Howlett 2013). Results of a subjective
evaluation study also showed that colour temperature of the
light sources had a significant influence on participants’ price
and quality perceptions (Ampenberger, Staggl, and Pohl 2017).
Aim and scope
Based on the findings of the literature review, it is evident that
lighting is a dominant component of a retail environment and
can influence not only the brand image and environmental per-
ception but also the level of consumers’ price and quality per-
ception. Previous studies clearly show that there has been an
effort to find a correlation between diverse store atmospherics
and human preferences; however, little is known about the inter-
play between lighting design and perception of space, prod-
uct price and quality in retail environments. Thereby, this study
attempts to discern how effective different lighting techniques
are in creating perceptions for retail environments and tries
to quantify this effect by means of an experimental subjective
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 157
evaluation. Accordingly, this study is based upon three main
research questions that are:
• Can different lighting design strategies influence customer
satisfaction in terms of luminous environment perception?
• Can different lighting design strategies influence customer’s
price perception?
• Can different lighting design strategies influence customer’s
quality perception?
To comply with the above-mentioned research questions,
this study deals with lighting design strategies and their impact
on environmental perception, price perception and quality per-
ception. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of
human factors in retail lighting design by means of a simulation-
based subjective approach for sales areas and establish an inte-
grative connection between luminous environment perception,
price perception and quality perception of displayed products.
It is only very recent that there have been some moves towards
the use of visual images for psychophysical experiments and
data collection based on the subjective analysis in retail envi-
ronments (Briand and Pras 2013; Manav 2013). Since scientific
visualization tools enable the users to virtually observe the illu-
minated space and evaluate lighting conditions in an effective
way (Eissa and Mahdavi 2001), this study uses the advantage
of computer-based visualizations for subjective data collection,
which are valid and acceptable tools in terms of lighting system
design, providing an image of the architectural space and repre-
sentation of its lighting system. Several studies have also tended
to use this method for subjective space analysis (Alawadhi and
Yoon 2016; Ko et al. 2016; Murdoch, Stokkermans, and Lambooij
2015; Newsham et al. 2005; Rockcastle, Chamilothori, and Ander-
sen 2017; Rohrmann and Bishop 2002; Tai and Inanici 2010;
Tantanatewin and Inkarojrit 2016; Rockcastle, Chamilothori and
Andersen 2017). The objective of this study is to also underline
the significance of human factors in retail lighting design and
this study seeks to contribute the growing body of research on
relationships between lighting quality, luminous environment
perception and human preferences in lighting design.
Methodology
This research is conducted in four main iterative stages: (i)
development of retail lighting design alternative sets and
3D modelling for visualisations representing different lighting
design schemes, (ii) visual comfort performance determination
of retail lighting design alternative sets, (iii) experimental sub-
jective evaluations-data collection on customer preferences for
retail lighting design alternatives and (iv) statistical analysis of
obtained results with combination of descriptive and inferential
statistics.
In this study, diverse lighting design patterns are gener-
ated for sales areas depending on the use of different lighting
techniques that are frequently met in retail environments. Each
lighting design alternative is 3D modelled using a CIE-validated
lighting simulation program and their visualisations represent-
ing different lighting design schemes are generated for further
subjective evaluations As the quality of computer-based visu-
alizations improved tremendously (Totir 2007), they are used
158 F. ŞENER YILMAZ
Figure 1. Flowchart of research methodology.
frequently during the lighting design process of retail environ-
ments (Schielke 2016). It is verified that computer-based visu-
alisations convey statistically similar lighting perception as in a
Figure 2. Plan (a) and 3D model (b) of the investigated department store.
real-world scenario (Engelke, Stokkermans, and Murdoch 2013).
Visual comfort assessment of each lighting design alternative is
performed based on visual comfort requirements addressed in
lighting standards. Experimental subjective evaluations are per-
formed in this study and human’s preferences for each lighting
design option are collected with the help of an applied sur-
vey. Obtained data are then statistically analysed in response to
the research questions that provide the basis for this research.
Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the research methodology.
Description of the investigated retail environment
Selected space type is a department store clothes shop having
a shop type of ‘shops with value for money and quality pro-
files’ and having a grid plan layout. The space has dimensions
of 10 m × 15 m and a height of 3.5 m. Light reflectance of the
selected space are 70% for ceiling, 50% for walls and 20% for
floor. The space has a total area of 150 m2 containing sales area,
till area, four fitting rooms and a storage room. This space is
assumed to be situated in a shopping mall in Istanbul-Turkey
without direct access to daylighting. Figure 2 shows the plan lay-
out (Figure 2(a)) and 3D model (Figure 2(b)) of the investigated
space.
Retail lighting design alternative sets
The lighting system design for retail environments can range
from preference of uniform, diffuse illuminance to a high con-
trast scheme using focused light. Retail lighting design alterna-
tive sets investigated in this study include the use of diverse
lighting design techniques, electric lighting strategies and use
of different types of lamps and luminaires for the selected retail
environment. In this study, different artificial lighting system pat-
terns are considered for the sales area depending on the use
of ‘general lighting’ (Set A), ‘general and accent lighting’ (Set
B) and ‘accent lighting’ (Set C). The lighting system for till and
wrapper areas is kept constant for all the lighting sets in this
study. In Table 1, plan schemes of retail lighting design alterna-
tive sets are presented and in Table 2, information on the lamps
and luminaires used in retail lighting design alternative sets are
given.
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 159

Table 1. Plan schemes of retail lighting design alternative sets. and creating a desirable, visually comfortable ambience. General
Set A-Use of Set B-Use of Set C-Use of lighting systems designed for Set A aim to produce a homoge-
general lighting general and accent lighting nous and glare-free illuminance throughout the retail environ-
only accent lighting only
ment and it represents the most frequently met type of lighting
A1 B1 C1
system in ‘shops with value for money and quality profiles’. In
this respect, three different sorts of general lighting design pat-
terns are proposed for the retail environment that are A1 – use
of square-recessed luminaires only, A2 – use of circular-recessed
downlight luminaires only and A3 – use of linear-recessed lumi-
naires only.
In order to draw attention to displayed merchandise, creat-
ing contrasts and highlights is of significant importance rather
A2 B2 C2
than just having a homogenous distribution of lighting in the
retail environments. This is possible by the use of a general light-
ing system aiming a lower maintained illuminance, combined
with an accent lighting design strategy creating contrasts and
bright light, highlighting the merchandise. In Set B, a combina-
tion of both is used by means of carefully planning the general
lighting system together with an accent lighting design strategy.
Generated scenarios for Set B are B1 – use of square-recessed
A3 B3 C3
luminaires and spotlights, B2 – use of circular-recessed down-
light luminaires and spotlights and B3 – use of linear-recessed
luminaires and cove lighting.
The use of accent lighting system design is often preferred
in retail environments to highlight particular properties of dis-
played merchandise and to provide an expressive alteration in
brightness and shadows throughout the space. In Set C, the
use of an accent lighting strategy is proposed without the pres-
ence of a general lighting system design for the retail environ-
General lighting system design in retail environments aims ment. In this regard, three different lighting design layouts are
to provide easy navigation through the space and examination investigated that are C1 – the use of adjustable spotlights only
of displayed merchandise, while emphasizing the space image that are mounted on tracks, directing light onto the exhibited

Table 2. Information on the lamps and luminaires used in retail lighting design alternative sets.
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6
Lamp type Fluorescent lamps Compact Fluorescent lamps LED source LED source Compact fluorescent
(T16, 2 × 24W) fluorescent (TL5, 2 × 28W) (TC-T, 18 W)
(2× PL-
C/2P18W)
Lamp luminous flux 3500 2400 5200 1500 4950 1200
(lm)
Luminaire type Square-recessed Recessed Linear-recessed Adjustable Grazing light Recessed downlight
luminaires with downlight luminaire with spotlight wallwasher luminaires
diffuser luminaires diffuser
Luminaire luminous 2657 1896 3492 1108 4047 1000
flux (lm)
Luminaire wattage (W) 49 50.6 61 12 45 19
Luminaire image

Luminaire luminous
intensity distribution

Ra ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80
Used scenario name A1 (n: 25),B1 (n: 12) A2 (n: 35),B2 (n: 25) A3 (n: 20),B3 (n: 12) B1 (n: 25),B2 (n: B3 (n: 8),C3 (n: 19) A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3,
and number of 18),C1 (n: 50),C2 C1, C2, C3 (used
luminaires used (n) (n: 50) in till and wrapper
areas, n: 20)
160 F. ŞENER YILMAZ

merchandise, C2 – the use of adjustable spotlights only that Visual comfort performance determination of retail
are mounted in the linear tracks hidden in the suspended ceil- lighting design alternative sets
ing and C3 – the use of linear luminaires for grazing lights,
Visual comfort performance determination of the investigated
projecting light onto the displayed merchandise and exhibi-
department store is performed considering the benchmark val-
tion walls for wallwashing schemes. Lighting systems proposed
ues specified in EN 12464 Standard (see Table 4) (EN 12464-1,
for Set C represent the use of a flexible accent lighting design
2011). The assessment of maintained illuminance (E m ), unifor-
strategy.
mity (Uo ), glare caused by light sources – Unified Glare Rating
A total of nine different retail lighting design alternatives are
(UGR) and colour property of the light sources (Ra) is evaluated.
considered for this study and all of these scenarios are gener-
Visual comfort performance calculations are performed
ated depending on the use of most frequently observed lighting
based on artificial light modelling through Dialux simulation
system installations in clothes shop retail environments with
program. Depending on the detailed space modelling, selection
value for money and quality profiles. Proposed lighting design
of appropriate lamps and luminaires and physical properties of
patterns are illustrated in Table 3. Each design alternative is
the investigated space, artificial lighting system calculations are
modelled on a computational basis and representative visu-
performed.
alizations and simulation results are generated in Dialux 4.13
During the lighting design process, zonal illuminance require-
lighting simulation software in order to further assess the visual
ments are taken into consideration since maintained illumi-
comfort conditions and user preferences in retail environments
nance for retail environments differs according to types of activi-
(Dialux 4.13). This program is widely used for lighting calcula-
ties performed. The illuminance recommendation of EN 12464-1
tion of indoor and outdoor environments and is chosen due
standard for retail premises is an average illuminance of 300 lx
to its extended ray tracing for photorealistic visualization abil-
for sales areas. According to the obtained simulation results
ity and its possibility to import photometric databases from
for retail lighting design alternative sets, calculated maintained
luminaire manufacturers. Several studies reveal that Dialux is a
validated simulation program based on International Commis-
sion on Illumination (CIE) technical report ‘CIE 171:2006 – Test
Table 4. Recommended visual comfort criteria for retail environments.
Cases to Assess the Accuracy of Lighting Computer Programs’
(Acosta, Navarro, and Sendra 2011; DIAL GmbH 2015; Fakra, EN 12464-1 StandardRetail
lighting design criteria E m (lx) UO UGRL Ra (min)
Boyer, and Maamari 2008; Iversen et al. 2013; Mangkuto 2015;
Shikder 2009). Sales area 300 0.4 22 80

Table 3. Front and side views of investigated retail lighting design alternative sets.
Set A- Use of general lighting Set B- Use of general and accent Set C- Use of accent lighting only
only lighting
A1 B1 C1

A2 B2 C2

A3 B3 C3
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 161

illuminance within the space is higher than 300 lx; therefore, it
is apparent that all of the scenarios comply with the maintained
illuminance criteria given in EN 12464-1 Standard. In Table 5, the
results of illuminance distribution maps (h: 0.8 m) are presented
for evaluated retail lighting design alternative sets.
Providing uniformity (the ratio of the minimum to average
illuminance, Uo ) is also required in order to supply the visual
comfort conditions in retail spaces and control the occurrence
of high contrasts on the interior surfaces. The uniformity cri-
teria given in EN 12464-1 Standard should be fulfilled for the
retail environments in order to obtain visually pleasing envi-
ronments. Uniformity is expected to be over 0.4 for the vertical
workplanes according to this standard. In this respect, unifor-
mity values are calculated for 15 vertical calculation planes (see
Table 6) representing the lighting conditions of the vertically dis-
played merchandise using Dialux software. Obtained results are
given in Table 6.
Results show that scenarios in Set A and Set B fulfil the uni-
formity requirements with 100% where for Set C this ratio drops
to 93.3% as low Uo levels are reached in scenarios C1, C2 and C3
with 0.28 (on vp 11), 0.36 (on vp2) and 0.33 (on vp11), respec-
tively. Since these scenarios are equipped with an effective
accent lighting strategy determined by the extent to which the
luminance of the merchandise lit is higher than the luminance of

Table 5. Illuminance distribution maps for retail lighting design alternative sets.
A1 B1 C1

Em: 391 lx Em: 343 lx Em: 351 lx

A2 B2 C2

Em: 375 lx Em: 377 lx Em: 357 lx

A3 B3 C3

Em:351 lx Em:375 lx Em:360 lx

162 F. ŞENER YILMAZ

Table 6. Vertical calculation workplanes for calculation of uniformity Uo and results of calculated uniformity Uo values.
Set A Set B Set C
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3
vp1 0.84 0.89 0.88 0.55 0.58 0.88 0.59 0.62 0.52
vp2 0.73 0.70 0.75 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.46 0.36 0.43
vp3 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.77 0.78 0.89 0.74 0.74 0.79
vp4 0.95 0.91 0.92 0.85 0.86 0.95 0.52 0.47 0.75
vp5 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.91 0.47 0.52 0.85
vp6 0.95 0.90 0.97 0.96 0.86 0.92 0.50 0.51 0.80
vp7 0.94 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.89 0.93 0.49 0.53 0.70
vp8 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.94 0.84 0.90 0.47 0.46 0.81
vp9 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.87 0.86 0.96 0.66 0.74 0.68
vp10 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.74 0.66
vp11 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.53 0.41 0.62 0.28 0.50 0.33
vp12 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.83 0.95 0.84 0.84 0.86
vp13 0.93 0.90 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.96 0.70 0.67 0.73
vp14 0.93 0.91 0.94 0.84 0.82 0.95 0.47 0.42 0.70
vp15 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.81 0.86 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.69

Table 7. Representative field of view directions for UGRL calculation and results of obtained values.
Set A Set B Set C
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3
p1 < 10 < 10 < 10 12 12 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p2 21 18 20 18 12 18 < 10 15 19
p3 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p4 15 22 19 16 22 19 15 < 10 < 10
p5 15 21 19 17 22 19 17 11 < 10
p6 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p7 15 22 18 12 19 16 18 < 10 19
p8 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p9 18 21 19 14 21 19 < 10 17 < 10
p10 16 21 19 15 22 18 < 10 13 < 10
p11 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p12 15 22 17 13 18 16 11 < 10 19
p13 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p14 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
p15 14 23 18 11 22 16 < 10 < 10 16

its immediate background, these low values are ignored in this
study.
The luminance distribution in the visual field affects visual
comfort conditions in retail environments; therefore, control of
glare is a necessity to provide visual comfort. Glare is the sen-
sation produced by a sufficiently greater luminance within the
visual field causing annoyance, discomfort or loss in visual per-
formance and visibility (IESNA 2011). The assessment of discom-
fort glare caused directly from the artificial lighting system can
be performed using the CIE UGR method in the retail environ-
ments. The maximum UGRL limit is specified as 22 for sales areas
according to the EN 12464-1 standard.
In this study, UGRL values are calculated for each representa-
tive field of view directions oriented to vertically displayed mer-
chandise using Dialux program. A total of 15 points are selected
for UGRL calculation (h: 1.5 m) (see Table 7). Obtained UGRL
results are presented in Table 7. Since the recommended max-
imum UGRL level for retail environments is 22, artificial lighting
system scenarios are found satisfactory in terms of UGR-based
artificial lighting glare assessment.
Colour temperature selection depends on the classification
of the retailer, quality of merchandise, client preference and
designer preference (IESNA 2011). To provide an objective indi-
cation of the colour rendering properties of a light source the
general colour rendering index (Ra) is used, having a maximum
value of 100. The minimum value of colour rendering index for
retail environments is given as ‘80’, but this value can be higher
when colour judgment is crucial. Selected lamps for lighting
design scenarios have appropriate Ra values complying with the
criteria given in EN 12464-1 Standard (see Table 2).
Experimental tests – subjective data collection on
customer preferences for retail lighting design
This experimental study focuses on collecting data for customers
lighting design preferences in retail environments. Starting from
a survey, data collection on the role of human factors in retail
lighting design parameters is analysed. A survey is prepared and
applied to each participant individually, and their feedback on
obtained retail lighting design alternative sets (Sets A, B and C)
is collected. The outputs of the experimental analysis are inves-
tigated in terms of space-based and merchandise-based ques-
tions. Statistical analysis of the test results is performed in IBM
SPSS Statistics 24 program.
Questionnaire design
Applied surveys consist of two main parts: preliminary questions
and questions regarding developed lighting alternative sets.
First, 10 preliminary questions are asked and then data collection

on participants opinions for the evaluated retail lighting design
alternative sets is performed. The first four preliminary questions
included questions regarding the age of the participants, gen-
der, education status, their vision and dexterity. Questions 5,
6 and 7 were created based on multiple selection and the
participants were asked about their dressing style in daily life
(casual/smart/smart casual), their shopping frequency for cloth-
ing (2–3 times in a year/4–5 times in a year/once a month/2–3
times in a month/once a week) and their shopping priority (prod-
uct quality oriented/price oriented/brand oriented/other). Ques-
tion 8 aimed to collect data on the importance of physical com-
fort conditions for retail environments and discuss the role of
visual comfort among them. For this question, participants were
asked to rate the importance of physical comfort conditions for
retail environments in terms of thermal comfort, visual comfort,
acoustic comfort, ventilation and olfactory comfort on a scale of
1–5 based on the Likert scale, 5 representing ‘high importance’
and 1 representing ‘low importance’. In Question 9, the impor-
tance of lighting for retail areas is questioned in terms of sales
areas, showcases, fitting rooms and till areas on a 1–5 Likert scale,
5 being of ‘high importance’ and 1 being of ‘low importance’.
Question 10 involved discussions of the participants’ expecta-
tions from lighting system design in sales areas based on a 1–5
Likert scale in terms of adequate illuminance, control of glare,
accurate colour perception, uniformity of lighting and use of
daylighting.
After the preliminary questions, the visualisations represent-
ing the lighting design alternative sets are introduced on the
participants in order to collect their feedback on each lighting
scheme’s effect on the space’s visual appearance in terms of
lighting design, participant’s price and also quality expectations
for displayed products in sample retail environments on a scale
of 1–5. The success of lighting design in terms of luminous envi-
ronment perception is questioned using the paired adjectives
‘very unpleasant (1)–very pleasant (5)’. The participants price
expectation from the exhibited products was rated using the
paired adjectives ‘very cheap (1)–very expensive (5)’. The qual-
ity expectation for exhibited products is questioned using the
paired adjectives ‘low quality (1)–high quality (5)’.
Participants and procedure of the experimental tests
Surveys are applied for 40 participants equally distributed
in gender. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 38 years
(M = 28.43, SD = 5.57), with 20 (50%) women and 20 (50%)
men. The experimental study is performed in a fixed set-up
equipped with a display screen, a PC for displaying the lighting
design results and a sitting arrangement for the researcher and
the participant. The display screen has 15.4 LED-backlit display;
2880 × 1800 (16:10) native resolution at 220 ppi with wide colour
(P3) gamut and 500-nits brightness. One subject was invited to
the set-up at a time and asked to sit down in front of the display
screen. Subjects are introduced about the aim of the experiment
and they were asked a number of preliminary questions about
their vision and dexterity to factor in any influence on the test
findings. The main vision issues reported were the use of glasses
or contact lenses. Nothing was identified which might have com-
promised the test findings or precluded a participant from tak-
ing place. They were also asked about their education status,
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 163
dressing style in daily life, shopping frequency for clothing and
shopping priority.
After the preliminary questions, the hypothetical scenarios
were introduced using the lighting simulation outputs in a cate-
gorical random order and the subject is told to imagine himself
or herself in the projected virtual retail environment. The sub-
jects were asked to report their responses for the evaluated
scenarios. Participants were also able to give direct feedback
regarding particular lighting characteristics and their feedback
is recorded. The average duration of each session was approxi-
mately 15–20 minutes.
Statistical analysis methodology
In this study, a combination of descriptive and inferential statis-
tics is applied to analyse the collected subjective data. In order to
group participants’ preferences and feedbacks throughout the
experiment, descriptive statistics are used in the form of percent-
ages and means to establish particular issues related with retail
lighting design.
In order to determine whether there were statistically sig-
nificant differences in the opinions of the participants on retail
lighting in terms of luminous environment perception, price
perception and quality perception of displayed products for dif-
ferent lighting alternative sets, non-parametric Friedman tests
are carried out since the Likert scale data that are used in this sub-
jective study are ordinal and contains repeated measures. The
experiment consists of taking feedback from the same sample of
subjects for different lighting design conditions; therefore, Fried-
man test method is applicable for comparing different mean
values of the population for diverse conditions. Post hoc tests
are applied based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test method with
Bonferroni adjustment for different combinations of related sets.
Statistical analysis is performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 24
software in this study.
Results of statistical analysis
The results of the statistical analysis are presented in this part of
the study.
Statistical analysis results of preliminary questions
The data collected in terms of information on dressing style
of the participants show that 38% of the participants prefer
casual, 42% prefer smart casual and 20% prefer smart dressing
style in their daily life. According to the findings of participants’
shopping frequency, it is observed that 38% of the participants
expressed a frequency of shopping as ‘once a month’ which is
followed by the 25% who stated their shopping frequency as
‘2–3 times in a month’. Fifteen percent of the participants stated
to perform shopping for clothing as ‘4–5 times in a year’ where
the least frequent shopping preference belonged to remaining
22% with ‘2–3 times in a year’. These preliminary results give a
brief idea on the participant profile in terms of dressing style
and their shopping frequency. Since selected case study retail
space example is a department store having ‘shops with value
for money and quality profiles’ where casual and smart casual
merchandise are displayed, the profile of the survey participants
is suitable in terms of their dressing style. It is also seen that there
164 F. ŞENER YILMAZ

are diverse shopping frequencies of the participants that are the
representative of the population for this study.
When the shopping priority results of the participants are
investigated, it is discovered that obtained results were spread.
52.5% of the participants (21 of the 40 participants) stated their
priority of shopping is ‘product quality oriented’ while this ratio
is 22.5% (9 of the 40 participants) for those who stated their
shopping priority as ‘product price oriented. Fifteen percent (6
of the 40 participants) stated that both quality and price of
the products are important while shopping for clothing. In this
study, only 5% of the participants (2 of the 40 participants) stated
that product quality, price and branding are of the same impor-
tance level. For the rest of the participants; 2.5% stated their
shopping priority as ‘product brand oriented’ and remaining
2.5% as product quality and branding together.
In the survey, the opinions of the participants about the
importance of physical comfort conditions (thermal comfort,
visual comfort, acoustic comfort, ventilation and olfactory com-
fort) for retail environments are questioned on a scale of 1–5
based on the Likert scale, 5 representing ‘high importance’ and 1
representing ‘low importance’. Results of the descriptive statis-
tics for this rating question regarding the importance of phys-
ical comfort conditions for retail environments are presented
in Table 8. Obtained mean results reveal that according to the
participants’ opinions on the importance of physical comfort
conditions, providing olfactory comfort is of highest importance
with a mean value of 4.23 which is followed by visual comfort
conditions having a mean value of 4.13. The lowest mean value
of 3.83 is obtained which belongs to providing thermal comfort
conditions in retail environments according to the results of this
question.
When the importance of lighting system design for retail
areas is questioned in terms of sales areas, showcases, fitting
rooms and till areas on a 1–5 Likert scale, 5 being of ‘high impor-
tance’ and 1 being of ‘low importance’, fitting rooms and sales
areas are found to be the spaces there participants thought light-
ing design is of significant importance with mean values of 4.25
and 4.13, respectively. The lowest mean value of 2.4 is found for
till areas according to the statistical analysis results for this ques-
tion. Table 9 gives the descriptive statistics results regarding the
importance of lighting for retail areas.
Obtained results on the participants expectations from light-
ing system design in sales areas in terms of illuminance level,
control of glare, accurate colour perception, uniformity of light-
ing and use of daylighting reveal that accurate colour perception
is found to be of highest importance with the highest mean
score for 4.70 which is followed by adequate illuminance hav-
ing a mean score of 4.55, control of glare (mean score of 3.88)

Table 8. Descriptive statistics results regarding importance of physical comfort conditions.

Thermal comfort Visual comfort Acoustic comfort Ventilation Olfactory comfort
Mean 3.83 4.13 4.00 4.08 4.23
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50
SD 1.152 0.992 1.062 1.071 0.891
Range 4 4 3 4 3
Minimum 1 1 2 1 2
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5
Count 40 40 40 40 40
Frequency distribution

Table 9. Descriptive statistics results regarding the importance of lighting for retail areas.
Sales areas Showcases Fitting rooms Till areas
Mean 4.13 4.08 4.25 2.40
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.50
SD 0.911 1.047 0.840 0.982
Range 3 3 3 3
Minimum 2 2 2 1
Maximum 5 5 5 4
Count 40 40 40 40
Frequency distribution

Table 10. Descriptive statistics results regarding the expectations from lighting system design in sales areas.
Adequate illuminance Control of glare
Mean 4.55 3.88
Median 5.00 4.00
SD 0.639 0.992
Range 2 4
Minimum 3 1
Maximum 5 5
Count 40 40
Frequency distribution
and uniformity of lighting (mean score of 3.68). Participants pre-
ferred daylight use in retail environments with the lowest mean
value of only 2.58. In Table 10, results of the statistical analysis
are presented in terms of the participants’ expectations from
lighting system design in sales areas.
Statistical analysis results in terms of luminous environment,
price and quality perception
In this study, three lighting design categories are considered for
subjective analysis: Set A – use of general lighting, Set B – use
of general and accent lighting and Set C – use of accent lighting
only. In each group, several lighting design configurations are
generated that are representative of each lighting design pat-
tern and a number of nine different cases are evaluated in terms
of luminous environment perception, price perception and qual-
ity perception of the displayed product. Obtained descriptive
statistics results regarding the luminous environment percep-
tion, price perception and quality perception of participants are
given in Table 11.
Luminous environment perception of participants. Accord-
ing to obtained results for luminous environment perception
of participants, Scenario A1 had the lowest mean score with
a value of 2.63 and C1 had the highest mean score with 3.60.
Friedman analysis process is used for all the investigated retail
lighting design sets to test the significance level. Obtained
findings reveal that there was a statistically significant differ-
ence between results of different lighting design sets as deter-
mined by the Friedman tests in terms of luminous environment
perception of participants: N = 40, Chi-Square (χ 2 ) = 47.662,
df = 8, p < .05 (1.14645309807054E−07). When the average
mean score of Set A – use of general lighting, Set B – use of gen-
eral and accent lighting and Set C – use of accent lighting only
is evaluated, it is found that Set C had the highest meanav score
with 3.53 which is followed by Set B with 3.43 while Set A had
the lowest among all with a meanav of 2.88.
Post hoc analysis is performed based on Wilcoxon signed-
rank tests that are conducted with a Bonferroni correction.
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests is used to compare differences
between Set A – Use of general lighting only, Set B – Use of
general and accent lighting and Set C – Use of accent lighting
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 165
Accurate colour perception Uniformity of lighting Use of daylighting
4.70 3.68 2.58
5.00 4.00 2.00
0.608 0.917 1.394
3 3 4
2 2 1
5 5 5
40 40 40
only (significance level is performed for p < .017). For scenar-
ios A1, B1 and C1, statistically significant results are obtained
for sets A1–B2 (Z = −4.730, p < .017 and A1–C1 (Z = −4.140,
p = .000034). There were no significant differences between
A2, B2 and C2 in terms of luminous environment perception of
participants. However, there was a statistically significant differ-
ence between sets A3–B3 (Z = −3.133, p = .00172) and A3–C3
(Z = −2.984, p = .00172). These findings underline the impor-
tance of using accent lighting strategy in retail environments,
as this is found to positively affect the luminous environment
perception of participants.
Price perception of participants. When the price perception
of participants is considered, Scenarios C1 and C2 are found to
have an equal mean score with a value of 3.83 where Scenario
A1 had the lowest with 3.08. Descriptive statistics results for
the price perception of participants are presented in Table 11.
Friedman analysis results show that obtained results are statis-
tically significant in terms of price perception of participants:
N = 40, Chi-Square (χ 2 ) = 32.145, df = 8, p < .05 (0.0000877).
Wilcoxon signed-rank test results reveal that for scenarios A1,
B1 and C1, statistically significant results are obtained for
pairs A1–B1 (Z = −3.469, p = .00052) and A1–C1 (Z = −3.382,
p = .00071). A2–C2 pairs have a statistically significant differ-
ence (Z = −2.760, p = .006) while for A2–B2 and B2–C2 pairs no
significant differences are observed according to post hoc test
results. Similarly, there were no significant differences between
A3, B3 and C3 in terms of price perception of participants. The
average mean score–meanav for Set A – use of general lighting is
calculated as 3.22 and this value is found as 3.55 and 3.74 for Set
B – use of general and accent lighting and Set C – use of accent
lighting only, respectively.
Quality perception of participants. When the feedback of par-
ticipants is investigated in terms of quality perception for dis-
played products in the evaluated retail space, it is found that
in Set A, the lowest mean values are reached with 3.13, 3.23
and 3.18 for scenarios A1, A2 and A3, respectively. Results on
the quality perception show that the highest mean scores are
obtained in Set C with 3.78 value for C1 and C2 and 3.70 for
Scenario C3. Performed Friedman analysis results show that
166 F. ŞENER YILMAZ

Table 11. Descriptive statistics results regarding the luminous environment, price and quality perception of participants.

Graphical expression of mean

Scenario N Mean Median SD Min. Max. scores and standard deviations
Luminous environment A1 40 2.63 3.00 0.838 1 4
perception
A2 40 3.15 3.00 0.893 2 5
A3 40 2.85 3.00 0.864 1 5
B1 40 3.53 4.00 0.816 2 5
B2 40 3.28 3.00 1.037 1 5
B3 40 3.50 3.50 0.877 2 5
C1 40 3.60 4.00 0.955 1 5
C2 40 3.48 4.00 1.012 1 5
C3 40 3.50 3.50 0.961 1 5

Price perception A1 40 3.08 3.00 0.917 1 5

A2 40 3.33 3.00 0.797 2 5
A3 40 3.25 3.00 0.927 1 5
B1 40 3.68 4.00 0.764 2 5
B2 40 3.55 4.00 0.783 1 5
B3 40 3.43 3.00 0.844 2 5
C1 40 3.83 4.00 0.747 1 5
C2 40 3.83 4.00 0.844 1 5
C3 40 3.58 3.00 1.010 2 5

Quality perception A1 40 3.13 3.00 0.853 1 5

A2 40 3.23 3.00 0.800 2 5
A3 40 3.18 3.00 0.844 2 5
B1 40 3.63 4.00 0.774 2 5
B2 40 3.50 3.00 0.816 1 5
B3 40 3.35 3.00 0.921 2 5
C1 40 3.78 4.00 0.800 1 5
C2 40 3.78 4.00 0.832 1 5
C3 40 3.70 4.00 0.791 2 5

obtained results are statistically significant in terms of price
perception of participants: N = 40, Chi-Square (χ 2 ) = 36.171,
df = 8, p < .05 (0.0000163). Wilcoxon signed-rank test results
show that for scenarios A1, B1 and C1, statistically significant
results are obtained for pairs A1–B1 (Z = −3.646, p = .00026)
and A1–C1 (Z = −3.221, p = .00127). A2–C2 pairs have a statis-
tically significant difference (Z = −2.974, p = .00294) while for
A2−B2 and B2−C2 pairs no significant differences are observed
according to post hoc test results. For scenarios A3, B3 and C3,
statistically significant results are only obtained for pairs A3–C3
(Z = −2.777, p = .00548) in terms of quality perception of par-
ticipants. The average mean score–meanav for Set A in terms of
quality perception is calculated as 3.18 and this value increases
to 3.49 and 3.75 for Set B – use of general and accent lighting
and Set C – use of accent lighting respectively.
Regression analysis. In order to gauge the influence of lumi-
nous environment perception on price and quality perception
of displayed products, test for correlations is performed. Moder-
ate to strong relationships are observed between the customers’
perceptions of luminous environment and price perception as
well as the quality perception of displayed products depend-
ing on the type of lighting system, as indicated in Table 12.
For Set A – use of general lighting only (R = 0.627; R2 = 0.393;
adjusted R2 = 0.377; p < .01) and Set B – use of general and
accent lighting (R = 0.703; R2 = 0.495; adjusted R2 = 0.481;
p < .01, impact of luminous environment perception on price
perception is found in a moderate level and the correlation
is positive. The highest correlation between luminous environ-
ment perception and price perception is observed in Set C – use
of accent lighting (R = 0.804; R2 = 0.647; adjusted R2 = 0.638;
p < .01).
As for the relationship between luminous environment per-
ception and quality perception of displayed products, a positive
correlation is observed in a moderate level for Set A – use of gen-
eral lighting only (R = 0.651; R2 = 0.424; adjusted R2 = 0.409;
p < .01), Set B – use of general and accent lighting (R = 0.684;
R2 = 0.468; adjusted R2 = 0.454) and Set C – use of accent light-
ing (R = 0.603; R2 = 0.364; adjusted R2 = 0.347; p < .01). This
means that a higher perceived result in terms of luminous envi-
ronment yields to higher results in terms of quality perception of
displayed products.
Comparison of overall results
In this study, it is questioned if there were differences in per-
ceived retail environment based on diverse lighting design vari-
ants in terms of luminous environment perception, price percep-
tion and quality perception of displayed products. Frequency
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 167

Table 12. Regression analysis results (luminous environment perception versus price and quality percep-
tion of displayed products).
Set A- Use of general Set B- Use of general and Set C- Use of accent
lighting only accent lighting lighting only

Figure 3. Frequency distribution of participant responses in terms of luminous environment, price and quality perception.

distribution of collected participant responses in terms of lumi-
nous environment, price and quality perception is given in
Figure 3 as percentages.
Obtained frequency distribution results of responses clearly
indicate that participants’ positive attitude in terms of luminous
environment perception increases their price perception as well
as the quality perception of products. Diverse lighting design
strategies are found to have an influence on customer satisfac-
tion in terms of luminous environment perception where the
highest satisfaction is observed in Set C – use of accent lighting
only, followed by Set B and Set A, respectively.
Customer’s price perception is found to be influenced by the
use of diverse lighting design strategies according to the results
of this study. It is clear from the results that the participant’s per-
ception of price increases from cheap to expensive when the
lighting scene is equipped with an accent lighting design strat-
egy. In this respect, the most expensive price expectation for
displayed products is reached in Set C and the lowest price per-
ception is found to happen in Set A where a uniform distribution
of lighting is aimed. It can be stated from the findings that light-
ing system design in retail environments is an indicator for the
price perception of participants and a positive relationship can
be observed for the price perception in retail environments and
use of an accent lighting strategy.
Obtained results also reveal that choice of retail lighting
design strategy is effective on customer’s quality perception. The
perceived quality of products significantly increased in a posi-
tive way moving through lighting design sets from Set A to Set
B and to Set C. In this respect, the highest quality expectation
for displayed products is reached in Set C and the lowest qual-
ity perception is found to be in Set A, as similar to the results
obtained for price perception. It can be stated here that a higher
perceived quality leads to a higher price perception in retail envi-
ronments and scenarios with diverse lighting effects helps to
create differences in space perception for retail environments.
Conclusion
This study aims to underline the significance of human factors in
retail lighting design and seeks to broaden the body of research
on relationships between lighting quality, luminous environ-
ment perception and human preferences in lighting design.
In this study, the impact of human factors on retail lighting
168 F. ŞENER YILMAZ
design is investigated by means of a simulation-based subjec-
tive approach for sales areas and user’s perspectives is evaluated
considering diverse lighting design alternatives that fulfil the
visual comfort conditions for a sample retail environment.
In retail environments, several environmental problems
could impair customer performance and well-being. In this
study, participants are asked about the importance of pro-
viding physical comfort conditions in terms of thermal com-
fort, visual comfort, acoustic comfort, ventilation and olfac-
tory comfort conditions in retail environments. Obtained results
reveal that 80% of the participants highly rated providing
visual comfort conditions in retail environments with significant
importance. Optimization of indoor environmental conditions
is crucial in order to maximize customer satisfaction in retail
environments.
According to the results of this study, sales areas, fitting
rooms and showcases are found to be the spaces where par-
ticipants thought lighting design is of significant importance
in retail environments. However, customers showed a very low
amount of concern about lighting of till areas. Since this study
is only limited to lighting design preferences in sales areas,
customers’ expectations from lighting system design are ques-
tioned in terms of illuminance, control of glare, accurate colour
perception, uniformity of lighting and use of daylighting for
sales areas. Obtained results stress the significance of accurate
colour perception in sales areas, which is followed by having
an adequate illuminance in retail environments for providing
visual comfort. It is interesting that customers believed the use
of daylight is the least important factor in retail environments
despite being the ideal source of light in terms of accurate colour
rendering.
This study expounds the importance of a holistic lighting
design strategy for retail environments where multiple design
objectives are handled together from the aspects of lighting
design requirements. In this study, state of the art computer-
based evaluations are performed in order to obtain visualiza-
tions for each lighting design variant, depending on the use of
‘general lighting’ (Set A), ‘general and accent lighting’ (Set B) and
‘accent lighting’ (Set C). Performance determination of proposed
lighting design alternatives is calculated in terms of maintained
illuminance (E m ), uniformity (Uo ), glare caused by light sources
– UGR and colour property of the light sources (Ra), considering
the benchmark values given in international lighting standards
for providing recommended visual comfort conditions.
Obtained visual comfort assessment findings point out that
providing uniformity criteria requested in international stan-
dards might contradict with the use of an effective accent light-
ing strategy, which automatically reduces the uniform distribu-
tion of lighting on the displayed merchandise since the lumi-
nance of the merchandise is expected to be higher than its
immediate background. It is certain that a challenge remains in
retail lighting design in terms of using accent lighting on displays
and optimizing requested uniformity levels as accent lighting is
preferred to emphasize particular features of the displayed mer-
chandise and to provide an expressive variation in brightness
and shadow throughout the retail environments. As this causes
a conflict in the lighting design practice, controlling the occur-
rence of glare and high contrasts on the interior surfaces is cru-
cial. In this study, uniformity is assessed in 15 vertical calculation
workplanes placed in the retail environment. Results show that
scenarios without an accent lighting strategy fulfil the unifor-
mity requirements with 100% where for scenarios with an accent
lighting strategy, this ratio is calculated as 93.3%. Obtained
visual comfort assessment findings point out that it is of lighting
designers responsibility to utilize the uniformity values together
with other visual comfort parameters and control the occurrence
of high contrasts on the interior surfaces.
This study establishes a connection between luminous envi-
ronment perception, price perception and quality perception
of displayed products. Linear regression analysis results reveal
that perceived luminous environment is effective on perceived
price and quality expectations from the displayed products in
the retail environment. It is clear from the obtained results that
with the use of an appropriate lighting design strategy, it is
possible to increase the positive impact of lighting design on
customers. Participants exhibited a strong preference for accent
lighting strategies in this study represented with Set C – use of
accent lighting only and customer satisfaction in terms of lumi-
nous environment perception was followed by Set B – use of
general lighting together with accent lighting and Set A – use
of general lighting, respectively. The statistical analysis results
show that Scenario C1 had the highest mean score with 3.60 and
Scenario A1 had the lowest mean score with a value of 2.63 in
terms of luminous environment perception.
Obtained results also point out that use of accent lighting
strategy increases the customer’s expectations in terms of prod-
uct price and quality. The statistical analysis results reveal that
participant’s perception of price increases from cheap to expen-
sive when the lighting scene is equipped with an accent lighting
design strategy such that Scenarios C1 and C2 are found to have
an equal mean score with a value of 3.83 where Scenario A1 had
the lowest with 3.08. The most expensive price expectation for
displayed products is reached in Set C – use of accent lighting
only and the lowest price perception is observed in Set A where
a uniform distribution of lighting is aimed by the use of general
lighting system. Similarly, lighting system design in retail envi-
ronments is found as an indicator for the quality perception of
participants where the perceived quality of products increased
moving through lighting design sets from Set A to Set B and
to Set C. According to the statistical analysis results, the high-
est quality expectation for displayed products is reached in Set
C with a mean value of 3.78 for C1 and C2 and the lowest quality
perception is found in Set A for Scenario A1 with a mean value
of 3.13.
It is found in this study that lighting design in retail envi-
ronments has a direct impact on the customer’s space percep-
tion and scenarios with diverse lighting effects help to create
differences in space perception for retail environments. Using
an appropriate accent lighting strategy is found to attract cus-
tomers and create the right atmosphere for the selling products
and deliver messages concerning the brand image. On the other
hand, a higher perceived quality is also found to lead to a higher
price perception in retail environments.
Obtained findings in this study can be used in the retail
lighting design practice, providing a better understanding of
the relationship between architectural lighting design in retail
environments and human factors. Results and benefits of this
research are to provide practical retail lighting design guidance

to retailers, architects and lighting designers in order to refurbish
existing lighting schemes or develop new lighting design solu-
tions. Lighting designers will be required to consider human fac-
tors at a great level in order to provide a holistic understanding
of retail lighting design concept and perform visually satisfying
and comfortable indoor environments.
These conclusions are obviously limited to one type of retail
environment – a cloth’s store but this research can further be
extended to consider different types of retail environments as
a future study. The subjective evaluations in this study are per-
formed by means of a survey-based data collection, which is
applied for 40 participants aged between 19 and 38, equally
distributed in gender. As a future work, diverse age and socio-
cultural groups as well as different shop profiles can also be
considered in order to fully investigate the impact of human per-
spectives on retail lighting design. Furthermore, the impact of
daylighting is aimed to be investigated in terms of customers
and employees lighting perception responses and visual com-
fort conditions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was made by the support of “2015 Jean Heap Research
Bursary” given by CIBSE-Chartered Institution of Building Services Engi-
neers, Society of Light and Lighting (SLL). The web link is as follows:
“https://www.cibse.org/society-of-light-and-lighting-sll/education/the-jean-
heapbursary”.
References
Acosta, I., J. Navarro, and J. J. Sendra. 2011. “Towards an Analysis of Daylight-
ing Simulation Software.” Energies 4: 1010–1024.
Alawadhi, A., and S.-Y. Yoon. 2016. “Shopping Behavioral Intentions Con-
tributed by Store Layout and Perceived Crowding: An Exploratory Study
Using Computer Walk-Through Simulation.” Journal of Interior Design 41
(4): 29–46.
Ampenberger, A., S. Staggl, and W. Pohl. 2017. “Attention Guidance, Per-
ceived Brightness and Energy Demand in Retail Lighting.” Energy Procedia
111: 658–668.
Andreu, L., E. Bigné, R. Chumpitaz, and V. Swaen. 2006. “How Does the Per-
ceived Retail Environment Influence Consumers” Emotional Experience?
Evidence from Two Retail Settings.” The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research 16 (5): 559–578.
Areni, C. S., and D. Kim. 1994. “The Influence of in-Store Lighting on Con-
sumers” Examination of Merchandise in a Wine Store.” International Jour-
nal of Research in Marketing 11: 117–125.
Ashley, C., M. Ligas, and A. Chaudhuri. 2010. “Can Hedonic Store Environ-
ments Help Retailers Overcome Low Store Accessibility?” The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice 18 (3): 249–262.
Babin, B. J., J. C. Chebat, and R. Michon. 2004. “Perceived Appropriateness
and Its Effect on Quality, Affect and Behaviour.” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 11 (5): 287–298.
Baker, J., M. Levy, and D. Grewal. 1992. “An Experimental Approach to Making
Retail Store Environmental Decisions.” Journal of Retailing 68 (4): 445–460.
Baumstarck, A., and N.-K. Park. 2010. “The Effects of Dressing Room Lighting
on Consumers” Perceptions of Self and Environment.” Journal of Interior
Design 35 (2): 37–49.
Berman, B., and J. R. Evans. 1995. Retail Management: A Strategic Approach.
6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boyce, P. R., C. J. Lloyd, N. H. Eklund, and H. M. Brandston. (1996). “Quantifying
the Effects of Good Lighting: The Green Hills Farms Project.” In Proceedings
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 169
of the IES annual conference. New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Soci-
ety of North America.
Brengman, M., and K. Willems. 2009. “Determinants of Fashion Store Person-
ality: a Consumer Perspective.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 18
(5): 346–355.
Briand, D. G., and B. Pras. 2013. “Simulating in-Store Lighting and Temper-
ature with Visual Aids: Methodological Propositions and S–O–R Effects.”
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 23
(4): 363–393.
Custers, P. J. M., Y. A. W. De Kort, W. A. IJsselsteijn, De Kruiff, and M. E.
2010. “Lighting in Retail Environments: Atmosphere Perception in the
Real World.” Lighting Research & Technology 42 (3): 331–343.
Cuttle, C., and H. Brandston. 1995. “Evaluation of Retail Lighting.” The Journal
of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 24 (2): 33–49.
DIAL GmbH. 2015. “DIALux 4 with New Improved Calculation Kernel.”
Accessed November 10, 2017. http://www.dial.de/DIAL/fileadmin/
download/dialux/wissen/Dx4_Rechenkern_eng.pdf
Eissa, H., and A. Mahdavi. 2001. “On the Potential of Computationally Ren-
dered Scenes for Lighting Quality Evaluation.” In Proceedings of the sev-
enth international IBPSA conference, 797–804.
Engelke, U., Stokkermans, M. G. M., and Murdoch, M. J. (2013). “Visualizing
Lighting with Images: Converging Between the Predictive Value of Ren-
derings and Photographs.” In Proceedings of SPIE 8651 human vision and
electronic imaging XVIII, 1-10. Burlingame, CA.
European Committee for Standardization. (2011). EN 12464-1: Light and Light-
ing: Lighting of Work Places – Indoor Work Places, Brussels: CEN.
Fakra A. H., Boyer H., and Maamari F. (2008). “Experimental Validation
for Software DIALUX: Application in CIE Test Cases for Building Day-
lighting Simulation.” In International conference on building energy and
environment-COBEE 2008, Dalian, China, July.
Foster, J., and M. A. McLelland. 2015. “Retail Atmospherics: The Impact of
a Brand Dictated Theme.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 22:
195–205.
Furnham, A., and R. Milner. 2013. “The impact of Mood on Customer Behavior:
Staff Mood and Environmental Factors.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 20, 634–641.
Gilboa, S., and A. Rafaeli. 2003. “Store Environment, Emotions and Approach
Behaviour: Applying Environmental Aesthetics to Retailing.” The Inter-
national Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 13 (2):
195–211.
Hunter, R., and B. Mukerji. 2011. “The Role of Atmospherics in Influencing
Consumer Behaviour in the Online Environment.” International Journal of
Business and Social Science 2 (9): 118–125.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 2011. The IESNA Lighting
Handbook: Reference and Application. 10th ed. New York: IESNA.
Iversen A., N. Roy, M. Hvass, M. Jørgensen, J. Christoffersen, W. Osterhaus, and
K. Johnsen. (2013). “Daylight Calculation in Practice: An Investigation of
the Ability of Nine Daylight Simulation Programs to Calculate the Daylight
Factor in Five Typical Rooms.” SBi 2013:26. Aalborg, Denmark.
Jin, H., X. Li, J. Kang, and Z. Kong. 2017. “An Evaluation of the Lighting Environ-
ment in the Public Space of Shopping Centres.” Building and Environment
115: 228–235.
Ko, T. K., I. T. Kim, A. S. Choi, and M. Sung. 2016. “Simulation and Perceptual
Evaluation of Fashion Shop Lighting Design with Application of Exhibition
Lighting Techniques.” Building Simulation 9 (6): 641–658.
Küller, R., S. Ballal, T. Laike, B. Mikellides, and G. Tonello. 2007. “The Impact of
Light and Colour on Psychological Mood: a Cross-Cultural Study of Indoor
Work Environments.” Ergonomics 49, 1496–1507.
Kumar, A., and Y.-K. Kim. 2014. “The Store-as-a-Brand Strategy: The Effect
of Store Environment on Customer Responses.” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 21 (5): 685–695.
Lombana, M., and G. L. Tonello. 2017. “Perceptual and Emotional Effects of
Light and Color in a Simulated Retail Space.” Color Research & Application,
1–12. doi:doi:10.1002/col.22127.
Luomala, H. T. 2003. “Understanding How Retail Environments Are Perceived:
A Conceptualization and a Pilot Study.” The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research 13 (3): 279–300.
Manav, B. 2013. “A Research on Light-Color Perception: Can Visual Images
be Used Instead of 1/1 Model Study for Space Perception?” Psychology
(Savannah, GA) 4 (9): 711–716.
170 F. ŞENER YILMAZ
Mangkuto, R. 2015. “Validation of DIALux 4.12 and DIALux evo 4.1
Against the Analytical Test Cases of CIE 171:2006.” LEUKOS: The
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1–12.
doi:doi:10.1080/15502724.2015.1061438.
Marques, S. H., M. M. Cardoso, and A. P. Palma. 2013. “Environmental Factors
and Satisfaction in a Specialty Store.” The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research 23 (4): 456–474.
Martellotta, F., A. Cannavale, M. D’Alba, S. Della Crociata, and A. Simone. 2016.
“Optimization of Indoor Environment Quality for Hypermarket Workers:
From Subjective Response to Objective Design Criteria.” Energy Procedia
101: 272–279.
Mattila, A. S., and J. Wirtz. 2001. “Congruency of Scent and Music as a Driver
of in-Store Evaluations and Behavior.” Journal of Retailing 77 (2): 273–289.
Mohan, G., B. Sivakumaran, and P. Sharma. 2012. “Store Environment’s
Impact on Variety Seeking Behaviour.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 19: 419–428.
Murdoch, M. J., M. G. M. Stokkermans, and M. T. M. Lambooij. 2015. “Towards
Perceptual Accuracy in 3D Visualizations of Illuminated Indoor Environ-
ments.” Journal of Solid State Lighting 2 (1): 511–519.
Nell, E. C. 2017. “The Impact of Sensory Environments on Consumer Buying
Behaviour: A Study of Visual Displays and Sight Atmospherics.” Journal of
Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR) 11 (2): 155–164.
Newsham, G., C. Richardson, C. Blanchet, and J. A. Veitch. 2005. “Lighting
Quality Research Using Rendered Images of Offices.” Lighting Research
and Technology 37 (2): 93–112.
Park, N. K., and C. A. Farr. 2007. “The Effects of Lighting on Consumers’ Emo-
tions and Behavioral Intentions in a Retail Environment: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison.” Journal of Interior Design 33 (1): 17–32.
Quartier, K. (2011). “Retail Design: Lighting as a Design Tool for the Retail
Environment.” PhD diss., University Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Quartier, K., J. Vanrie, and K. Van Cleempoel. 2014. “As Real as it Gets: What
Role Does Lighting Have on Consumer’s Perception of Atmosphere, Emo-
tions and Behaviour?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 39: 32–39.
Ray, I., and L. Chiagouris. 2009. “Customer Retention: Examining the Roles of
Store Affect and Store Loyalty as Mediators in the Management of Retail
Strategies.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 17 (1): 1–20.
Rayburn, S. W., and K. E. Voss. 2013. “A Model of Consumer’s Retail
Atmosphere Perceptions.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20:
400–407.
Reynolds-McIlnay, R., Morrin, M., and Nordfält, J. (2017). How Prod-
uct–Environment Brightness Contrast and Product Disarray Impact Con-
sumer Choice in Retail Environments. Journal of Retailing. doi:doi:10.1016/
j.jretai.2017.03.003.
Rockcastle, S. F., K. Chamilothori, and M. Andersen. 2017. “An Experiment in
Virtual Reality to Measure Daylight-Driven Interest in Rendered Architec-
tural Scenes.” InProceedingsof Building Simulation 2017 (No. EPFL-CONF-
227407).
Rohrmann, B., and I. Bishop. 2002. “Subjective Responses to Computer Sim-
ulations of Urban Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 22
(4): 319–331.
Schielke, T. 2010. “Light and Corporate Identity: Using Lighting for Corporate
Communication.” Lighting Research & Technology 42 (3): 285–295.
Schielke, T. 2015. “Influence of Lighting Design on Marketing Communica-
tion.” LEUKOS: The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America 11 (3): 109–124. doi:doi:10.1080/15502724.2015.1020949.
Schielke, T. 2016. “Validity of Simulations for Lighting and Brand Image
Evaluation.” Lighting Research & Technology 48 (4): 473–490.
Shikder, S. 2009. “Evaluation of Four Artificial Lighting Simulation Tools
with Virtual Building Reference.” In Proceedings of the summer computer
simulation conference. Society for Modeling & Simulation International.
Smith, W. 1989. “Trends in Retail Lighting: An Intelligent Design Approach.”
Retail and Distribution Management 17 (5): 30–32.
Society of Light and Lighting. 2009. The SLL Lighting Handbook. London:
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.
Summers, T. A., and P. R. Hebert. 2001. “Shedding Some Light on Store
Atmospherics.” Influence of Illumination on Consumer Behaviour. Journal of
Business Research 54: 145–150.
Tai, N. C., and M. Inanici. 2010, April. “Space Perception and Luminance Con-
trast: Investigation and Design Applications Through Perceptually Based
Computer Simulations.” In Proceedings of the 2010 spring simulation mul-
ticonference, 73–80.
Tantanatewin, W., and V. Inkarojrit. 2016. “Effects of Color and Lighting on
Retail Impression and Identity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 46:
197–205.
Ticleanu, C., P. J. Littlefair, and G. Howlett. 2013. The Essential Guide to Retail
Lighting. IHS BRE Press: ISBN: 978-1-84806-322-8.
Totir, C. D. 2007. “The Potential of Computationally Rendered Images for the
Evaluation of Lighting Quality in Interior spaces.” Retrospective Theses
and Dissertations Paper 15072, Iowa State University.
Turley, L. W., and R. E. Milliman. 2000. “Atmospheric Effects on Shopping
Behavior: a Review of the Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Business
Research 49 (2): 193–211.
Wakefield, K. L., and J. Baker. 1998. “Excitement at the Mall: Determinants and
Effects on Shopping Response.” Journal of Retailing 74 (4): 515–539.
Zhao, M., Y. S. Kim, and J. Srebric. 2015. “Occupant Perceptions and a Health
Outcome in Retail Stores.” Building and Environment 93: 385–394.