Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Lighting preferences in office spaces

concerning the indoor thermal
environment
Maryam Fakhari a,*, Rima Fayaz a, Somayeh Asadi b

a
Energy and Architecture Section, Department of Architecture, University of Art, Tehran, Iran
b
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Received 17 December 2020; received in revised form 12 March 2021; accepted 17 March 2021

KEYWORDS
Lighting preferences;
Daylighting;
Artificial lighting;
Illumination comfort
Abstract The accurate prediction of the visual comfort zone in an indoor environment is
difficult as it depends on many parameters. This is especially the case for large compact urban
areas in which the density and shadow from neighboring buildings can limit the accessible
daylighting in indoor spaces. This paper investigates the satisfaction range for illuminance
regarding indoor air temperature in office buildings and the significant parameters affecting
this range in six office buildings in Tehran, Iran. Lighting comfort has been evaluated by a sub-
jective survey (509 total responses) and field measurement. The questionnaires were filled out
in 146 and 109 rooms in summer and winter, respectively. The results show that the illumi-
nance should not be less than 550 lx, while illuminance between 600 and 650 lx provides the
highest satisfaction level. The satisfaction with lighting level is affected by individual param-
eters such as age, type of activity, and environmental parameters such as window orientation,
external obscurations, and season. A relationship was observed between lighting level satisfac-
tion and thermal condition acceptance, and the overall comfort depends more on thermal con-
ditions than the lighting level.
ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf
of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Providing comfortable indoor spaces is a constant challenge

for architects, especially in office spaces where employees
* Corresponding author.
spend many hours of the day. In these spaces, lighting is one
E-mail addresses: maryamfakhari@ut.ac.ir (M. Fakhari), Fayaz@
of the most important environmental parameters as most of
art.ac.ir (R. Fayaz), asadi@engr.psu.edu (S. Asadi).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University the activities are based on receiving visual information from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.03.003
2095-2635/ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 M. Fakhari, R. Fayaz and S. Asadi
the surroundings. Also, satisfaction with lighting conditions is
one of the main elements that significantly affects the
environment’s overall comfort levels (Veitch et al., 2007).
However, other studies have reported that lighting condi-
tions are the least important factors in buildings when other
indoor environmental factors are considered. Among lighting
sources, daylighting is an essential and useful strategy to
provide visual comfort. It is directly associated with energy-
saving by reducing energy consumption caused by artificial
lighting (Sharma et al., 2018). But to support visual and
non-visual requirements in indoor environments, it is
essential to consider adequate integration of natural and
artificial sources of light (Krüger et al., 2018).
To assess the lighting in living/working spaces and define
conformity conditions based on the design standards,
metrics are used as a physical measure (Tregenza and
Mardaljevic, 2018). Generally, there are static and dynamic
metrics to evaluate various aspects of daylight (Reinhart and
Weissman, 2012). Static metrics such as illuminance-based
daylighting metrics and Daylight Factor (DF), luminance
distribution, view of the sky is typically evaluated based on
illuminance (Andersen et al., 2008) and have been used in
building regulations for a long time (Aries, 2005). In most
standards and codes, the minimum recommended illumi-
nance level on work planes for regular office work is 500 lx.
For instance, the Canadian Labor Code, IESNA, NS-EN
12464e1:2011, suggested a minimum of 500 lx on the desk
in office spaces (Reinhart and Fitz, 2006; Grynning et al.,
2014). There are lower values recommended in some
codes, for example, 300 lx in the National Building Code
(NBC) of India (National Building Code (NBC) of India, 2005).
In National building Code No. 13 of Iran, a minimum illumi-
nance level in office spaces is suggested not to be less than
500 lx (National Building Regulations, 2009). In BS8206-2, the
average daylight factor is at least 2%. (Yun et al., 2012;
British Standards Institution, 2008). Green building rating
system such as LEED in 2007 expresses the daylight attributes
in terms of daylight factor distribution (LEED-NC 2.1) or
glazing factor distribution (LEED-NC 2.2) and view to the
outside (Galasiu and Reinhart, 2008). However, in most of
these standards, the minimum lighting level in indoor spaces
is more according to the economic considerations than the
technical criteria to provide comfort conditions (DiLaura et
al., 2011; Mardaljevic and Christoffersen, 2016).
Most studies on visual comfort and users’ lighting pref-
erences indicate people prefer much higher light levels
than what is typically recommended by standards and
regulations (Boubekri, 2008). Many studies have been con-
ducted to find an acceptable lighting level in offices to
create a comfortable office environment. Previous studies
show the desired lighting level is different when the envi-
ronment lighting source is daylight or artificial lighting. It
was observed that the illuminance preference of occupants
under only artificial light varies significantly from 100 to 800
lx (Newsham and Veitch, 2001; Boyce et al., 2006; Veitch
and Newsham, 2000). Laurent et al. (Laurentin et al.,
2000) found that people prefer 300 lx when the lighting
source is only daylight. Galasiu and Veitch (2006) expressed
when daylight was available in office spaces; users chose a
low artificial light level. For instance, people added
150e400 lx artificial light to the daylight on their desks;
640
however, when daylight illuminance was below 100 lx,
many said no more than 280 lx is required.
Building occupants have different preferences of lighting
conditions depending on a large number of parameters,
which could be categorized to personal variables such as the
type of work, duration and time of work, the users’ age
(Aimilios and Heracleous, 2017); physical environment vari-
ables such as floor level, window orientation, external
obscuration (Xue et al., 2016) and physical quantity of light
such as the amount of light and its distribution in space
(Carlucci et al., 2015). In addition to visual parameters,
three other main factors of air quality, thermal parameters,
and acoustic contribute equally (Frontczak et al., 2012). So,
it is necessary to evaluate the overall comfort to determine
potential interactions of at least two of these factors
(Laurentin et al., 2000). Buratti et al. (2018) introduced an
evaluation index for each of the thermal, visual, and
acoustic comforts in Italy and evaluated overall satisfaction
with these factors’ simultaneous effect. According to the
heat-color hypothesis, visual and heat perception affect
each other (Heijs and Stringer, 1988). The most important
physical parameters for thermal and visual comfort are
temperature and illuminance (Sicurella et al., 2012).
Despite the large number of studies considering visual and
thermal comfort conditions, there is still a need to further
investigate the relationship between the indoor environ-
ment’s thermal perception and lighting preferences. Hence,
in this study, the correlation between lighting and thermal
satisfaction will be investigated. Additionally, the accept-
able lighting level in office spaces and those personal pa-
rameters and physical environmental variables affecting
lighting comfort zone in this study are identified.
2. Methodology
Identifying factors influencing the subjective evaluation of
natural light in office environments is possible through two
methods: test room and field study. In test rooms, ambient
conditions can be controlled, high-quality measurement
technology can be used, and the measured values are very
accurate. The test room environment is not the “real” working
environment because participants only spend a few minutes or
hours in the room. In the test room studies, only a few vol-
unteers can be interviewed simultaneously, limiting the sam-
ple size. Compared to studies in test rooms, field studies show
greater validity of the results since they consider real influ-
encing parameters on occupant’s satisfaction. Psychosocial
factors related to the working environment and the presence
of other people who work in the same room are engaged in
studies in the real workplace environment (Moosmann, 2015).
To this end, this paper presents a field study integrated with
physical lighting quantities to define the level of occupants’
satisfaction with the lighting in the workplace, which is done
after the long-term interaction between user and building.
Most of the participants have spent at least three months in
their working room. So, they have been adapted to the envi-
ronment. As the shading directly affects visual and thermal
perception (Nowak et al., 2016), the survey shading devices
were switched off during the survey.
The research methodology contains three main steps;
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651
(1) identifying variables that affect lighting satisfaction
level;
(2) data collection, which consists of three parts:
 Selecting case studies and participants;
 Subjective survey; users’ evaluations of physical
variables and other measured environmental vari-
ables are investigated; and
 Measurement of the lighting intensity
(3) through statistical analysis and the field survey re-
sults, the desired lighting level and related variables
are identified based on the correlation between var-
iables and occupants’ responses.
2.1. Buildings and occupants
2.1.1. Buildings
The underlying study is part of a field study conducted in 146
rooms in summer and 109 rooms in winter of six office buildings
in Tehran. These six offices are selected to consider different
spaces in old and new buildings, one-story and high-rise
buildings, open plan, and cellular offices with varying win-
dow orientation. In these six buildings, the rooms were
selected according to one, two- or multi-person offices. Rooms
selection concerning the plan was a uniform distribution in
taking the spaces (floors, window orientation, optionally
atrium/outside window or old/new).
The available features for each building are as follows:
2.1.1.1. Building A. An institutional building with 30-
rooms located in the northwest of Tehran, which has only
one-story in the Power Research Center site. Windows are
oriented to the north, south, east, and west. Several rooms
had two windows oriented north and east, and other rooms
had south and east windows. There were seven rooms
without any windows. The curtains shade the windows from
the inside. The ratio of the external window area to the
room area (WFR) is 17% on average, and the ratio of the
window area to the exterior wall (WWR) is 23%. Participants
filled out 42 questionnaires in 27 different rooms in summer
and 24 questionnaires in 21 rooms in winter.
2.1.1.2. Building B. Administrative building of the Uni-
versity of Art located in the central part of Tehran; a his-
torical two-story building. Windows are oriented to the
north, south, east, and west. Most of the windows face
south and north, and only a few windows face east or west.
Curtains shade windows from the inside. WFR is 22% on
average, and WWR is 30%. Most rooms in this building are
4.6 m  3.6 m  2.8 m, and the window dimensions are 1.5
m  1.5 m with a window sill height of 1 m above the
finished floor level. In this building, 26 questionnaires in 18
rooms in summer and 42 questionnaires in 27 rooms in
winter were filled out by participants.
2.1.1.3. Building C. The municipality building, small size
and a newly built four-story building in downtown Tehran.
Windows are oriented to the north, south, east, and west.
Curtains shade them from the inside. WFR is 22% on average,
and WWR is 30%. Most rooms in this building are 6 m  3.8
m  2.75 m, and the window dimensions are 3 m  1.2 m. The
window sill height is 1 m. Twenty questionnaires were
641
completed by participants in 9 different rooms in summer
and 14 questionnaires in 10 rooms in winter.
2.1.1.4. Building D. Student Affairs Organization Building in
the central part of Tehran; a 50 years old and six-story-high
building. Windows are oriented to the north, south, east, and
west. Curtains shade windows from the inside. WFR is 16% on
average, and WWR is 29%. Most rooms in this building are 3.2
m  4.8 m  2.65 m, and the window dimensions are 1.2
m  1.2 m. The window sill height. Thirty-two questionnaires
were filled out by participants in 25 rooms in summer and 29
questionnaires in 21 spaces in winter.
2.1.1.5. Building E. Kayson INC., located in the northern
part of Tehran; a six-story open-plan office building. Windows
are oriented to the north and south, and there are some rooms
without windows. Seventy-one participants filled out the
questionnaire in the spaces with openings to the atrium.
Curtains shade windows from the inside. WFR is 26% on
average, and WWR is 56%. Most rooms in this building are 9
m  7 m  3 m, and the window dimensions are 6.5 m  2.8 m.
In this building, 65 questionnaires were completed by
participants in 17 spaces in summer and 46 questionnaires in
9 rooms in winter.
2.1.1.6. Building F. The Ministry of Science, Research and
Technology in the northwest of Tehran; a 13-floor Building.
Windows are oriented to the north, south, east, and west, and
15 participants filled out the questionnaire in the rooms with
openings to the atrium. Curtains shade windows from the
inside. WFR is 17% on average, and WWR is 35%. Most rooms in
this building are 3 m  4.6 m  2.65 m, and the window
dimensions are 1.5 m  1.3 m. The window sill height is 1 m. In
this building, 95 questionnaires were filled out by participants
in 50 rooms in summer and 74 questionnaires in 21 rooms in
winter (Figs. 1 and 2).
Additionally, the glass of exterior windows is typical clear
glass; with a thickness of 0.003 m, visible transmittance of
0.898, solar reflection of 0.075 and without a Low-e coating. In
all buildings, internal curtains were used as a shading system,
but they were open during the measurement to provide similar
conditions during the survey.
2.1.2. General characteristics of occupants
The survey involved 509 questionnaires (280 in summer and
229 in winter), 55.9% female and 44.1% male with a mean age
of 38 years (22e68). Most of the participants (38.5%) are be-
tween 30 and 39 years old. Table 1 shows the age and gender
range of the occupants in percentage. The participants have
been in the rooms for an average of 3.4 years (min. 1 month
and max. 20 years). 35.2% reported that they spend more than
8 h in the office during the day, 51.7% between 6 and 8 h, 11.5%
between 4 and 6 h, and 1.6% less than 4 h. The 136 question-
naires were completed before 11:30, 244 were completed
between 11:30 and 13:10, and 129 after 13:30.
47.7% of activities are just paper-based, 6.7% only with a
computer, and 45.6% both of them. 24.6% reported that they
suffered from severe headaches, and 36.6% used glasses for
reading. 18% had a private room, 25.8% were in a double oc-
cupancy room, 34.8% in a space with three or four persons, and
21.4% in open-plan spaces.
 M. Fakhari, R. Fayaz and S. Asadi

Fig. 1 Studied buildings.

Fig. 2 Some of the indoor spaces were selected for the field measurement.

2.2. Data collection section was data collected through a questionnaire which
consists of two parts: the first part was completed by the re-
The required data consist of two sections: first, the physical searchers, which included the physical parameter of the
data were collected by field measurement. As there is a sig- space, outdoor obscurations, and the characteristics of the
nificant correlation between illuminance levels and visual light sources, and users filled out the second part consists of
comfort (Ricciardi and Buratti, 2018), the illuminance level individuals’ parameters and their assessment of the environ-
has been measured. The other measured parameters were mental conditions.
temperature and relative humidity. Physical data were
collected when users filled out the questionnaire. The second 2.2.1. Field measurement
To consider the seasons’ influence, the measurements and
surveys were carried out during summer from July 3rd to July
Table 1 Age and gender of the participants. 23rd, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. During winter, data
collection was conducted from January 30th to February 25th,
Female Male Total 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The average annual sunshine
<30 20 15 35 hours in Tehran are over 2903 h/year based on Mehrabad
30e39 99 80 179 meteorological station data. 38% of the year, the sky is totally
40e49 103 81 184 clear (cloud cover is less than 10%), 18% of the year, there is
50 61 50 111 overcast sky (with more than 90% cloud cover), and in other
times the sky is 10%e90% cloudy (U.S. Department of Energy,

642
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651
2008). The sky condition during the survey in winter and
summer was similar and totally clear.
The following physical variables were measured in the
environment simultaneously:
 Horizontal illuminance at the desk level (if two or three
people were in different parts of the room, the mea-
surement of the intensity of light at the desk level would
determine how the lighting was distributed in the room;
otherwise, the intensity of the light at the user’s desk
and two other points in the room)at the same level)
were measured. Light intensity was measured once with
artificial lighting and once without it;
 Room air temperature and radiant temperature by using
black globe temperature sensor;
 Relative humidity.
For the measurement of illumination, the LX-1128SD device
was used which has three ranges of measurements: from 0 to
1999 lx, 1800e19,990 lx, and 18,000e99,900 lx. For this study,
since the maximum illuminance was 1298 lx, the first range was
nominated for the measurement. The air temperature and
radiant air temperature were measured by the WBGT-2010SD
Heat index (the measurement range for air temperature is
from 0 to 50  C, and for radiant temperature, 0e80  C) and the
relative humidity by the HT-3007SD with 5%e95% measure-
ment range.
Measured data were collected in 146 rooms in summer and
109 spaces in winter. In each room, lux meters were located at
the user’s desk level and in a few other places (two or three
units per room) to measure the room’s lighting distribution,
1.5e2 m from the window or the wall). Thus, data related to
the lighting level at the user’s desk height and light distribu-
tion in the room were collected simultaneously. Measure-
ments were completed while occupants were filling out the
questionnaires. Each value was recorded in 15 min and at in-
tervals of 10 s.
The lighting measurement was done both with and without
artificial light. The questionnaire contained questions that ask
the satisfaction of occupants in these two different condi-
tions. In this study, as we seek visual comfort regarding the
impact of the thermal condition, the illuminance level with
daylight was applied in the data analysis.
2.2.2. Questionnaire survey
Determining comfort illuminance in office spaces is possible
through the subjective survey (Yun et al., 2012). Horizontal
and vertical illuminances have already been assessed by per-
sonal evaluation in various studies (Day et al., 2012; Dahlan
et al., 2009; Wienold and Christoffersen, 2006; Maki and
Shukuya, 2012; Iwata et al., 1994; Kim and Kim, 2007;
Linhart and Scartezzini, 2010; Axarli and Meresi, 2008). A
longitudinal approach using the questionnaire has been con-
ducted to clarify the relationship between occupants, build-
ings, and perceived physical environmental conditions in the
current study. The occupants’ subjective responses were
compared with the physical measurements to evaluate the
buildings’ lighting conditions. The questionnaire aimed to
investigate the staff’s sensation and satisfaction levels in
terms of the indoor environment. Occupants have different
lighting preferences according to their sensitivity and
643
character (Chraibi et al., 2016), which are considered for
evaluating the lighting environment. Therefore, the ques-
tionnaire contains two parts: first general information about
gender, age, type of work, and second, satisfaction and
sensation on physical and environmental parameters (Table A1
and A2). The second part is classified as below:
 Perceived lighting level
 Occupants’ satisfaction with lighting
 Occupants’ tendency to change the amount of light
 Occupants’ rating of lighting distribution
 Light source preferences
 Preferred kind of space
A five-point Likert scale is used to quantify the occupants’
satisfaction levels with environmental conditions. The Likert
scale is one of the most common ranking scales applied in
lighting researches (Moore et al., 2002). The paper ques-
tionnaires were in Persian, and a summary of the English
translation is presented in Appendix A. The numbers
assigned for the Likert scale in the Appendix for very little,
little, average, much, too much have assumed as 1,2,3,4,5,
respectively. As shown in Appendix A, other data collected
from the environment are related to building and room
characteristics such as building type, floor level, and window
orientation. According to the answers given by occupants, on
their preferences to decrease or increase lighting level,
15.1% of occupants prefer very little increase and 30.3%
prefer very slight decrease of lighting level; 24.2% little in-
crease and 28.9% little decreases of lighting level; 24.4% and
21.6% selected average level of change; 29.7% much increase
and 4.1% much decreases of lighting level; and 6.7% very
much increase and 4.1% much reductions of lighting level.
2.3. Data analysis
The collected data through measurement and survey contain
different kinds of information on a different scale (nominal,
ordinal, and interval scale). For instance, the physical mea-
sures such as illuminance are interpreted as an interval scale,
the response scales of the questionnaire were a 5-point scale
(“very little” to “very much”) is taken as an ordinal scale. In
contrast, other response scales in questionnaires, such as
gender are nominal. Due to the diversity in the data scale,
different tests have been used to analyze statistical data
(Cramer and Howitt, 2004). Statistical analysis was performed
using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL,
USA).
Data analysis consists of three steps. First, the relationship
between temperature and visual perception and overall
satisfaction of the environment is studied. The second step is
to define the lighting comfort level. This step involves two
sections. The first is to determine whether there is a signifi-
cant correlation between the illuminance level and the oc-
cupants’ satisfaction level with the illumination. The second is
to define the lighting comfort zone. In this section, illumi-
nance levels measured at the field are assorted into eight
different levels to determine the acceptable range of illumi-
nation. To achieve a more precise comfort range, illuminance
was classified into 14 groups. In the third step, a statistical
analysis is conducted to determine the relationship between
occupants’ subjective satisfaction with daylight and the
 M. Fakhari, R. Fayaz and S. Asadi
factors affecting the desired lighting level, which is defined in
the previous step. An ANOVA test was used to assess the
impact of individual parameters such as age, gender, etc., on
a nominal scale (Chellappa et al., 2017, 2017). Spearman rho-
correlations are appropriate for defining correlation among
environmental parameters in ordinal scale and subjective
responses (Zhang et al., 2019; Krüger et al., 2018; Andargie
and Azar, 2019).
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was applied
for quantitative variables. The Spearman rank correlation
coefficient is a non-parametric measure that assesses sta-
tistical dependence between two variables using a mono-
tonic function to describe the relationship between them
(Field, 2017; Xue et al., 2014). Paired t-test for visual and
thermal satisfaction in winter and summer and linear
regression to assess different factors that have an impact
on the visual perception responses are applied. The last
part is to investigate staff satisfaction with the lighting and
thermal conditions. For this step, it is appropriate to use
descriptive analysis for the mean value and standard devi-
ation of occupants’ comfort perception and the environ-
mental factors (Zhang et al., 2019). It is worth mentioning
that the comparison of satisfaction level of lighting was
separately made according to the window orientation, type
of building, season, and space adjacencies.
3. Results of the occupant’s survey
3.1. Step 1
The measured illumination at the desk level is presented in
Fig. 3a. The highest illuminance was 1298 lx in summer and
1150 lx in winter. The minimum illuminance was 77 lx in
summer and 35 lx in winter, and the mean illuminance levels
were 472.64 lx in summer and 470.21 lx in winter. In Fig. 3b,
the measured indoor air temperature based on time of day and
season is presented. The highest air temperatures were 33  C
and 29  C, and the lowest was 17  C and 21  C in summer and
winter, respectively. The mean indoor air temperature in
summer and winter was 25.3  C. Fig. 3c shows the indoor
relative humidity, which is 17.9%e55.1% in summer with a
mean of 34.7% and 17.2%e26.5% in winter with a mean of
25.8%. To determine if there is any relationship between the
perception of the thermal and visual conditions and the
space’s overall perception, Spearman correlation has been
applied, and results are shown in Table 2. The 136 participants
have filled out the questionnaire in the morning, 244 partici-
pants at midday, and 129 participants in the afternoon.
As shown in Fig. 3a, the total illumination of combined
natural and artificial light in winter increase during the
hours of the day. The illumination in the morning in summer
is more than that in winter. Still, in the morning and af-
ternoon, the illumination in winter is higher than in the
summer (these values are measured in rooms with different
window orientations and do not necessarily reflect the
pattern of illumination during the day). The measured in-
door air temperature, in the midday and during the after-
noon in summer, is higher. Still, in the morning, the air
temperature in winter is higher than in the summer due to
heating and cooling equipment. The relative humidity is
generally higher in summer than in winter.
644
Spearman correlation has been used to compare the
occupants’ sensation of thermal and visual conditions with
the environment’s overall satisfaction. According to Table
2, there is a meaningful correlation between occupants’
responses to thermal and visual requirements and overall
satisfaction in office spaces.
3.2. Step 2
To find the acceptable range of illumination, it is essential to
investigate a significant correlation between occupants’ sub-
jective satisfaction toward the lighting condition and the
illuminance level. For this purpose, the Spearman correlation
has been applied (Bluyssen et al., 2018). As shown in Table 3, a
statistically significant relationship exists (p-value<0.05) be-
tween lighting and thermal satisfaction and illuminance level.
Besides, linear regression is carried out to identify the
determination coefficient (R2) (Jakubiec et al., 2021). The
correlation between illumination level and lighting satisfac-
tion (R2 Z 0.258) is moderate, while for illumination level and
thermal satisfaction correlation (R2 Z 0.015), indicating a
very low correlation (Ferguson, 2009). So, illumination level
has a very low impact on thermal satisfaction (Fig. 4).
As the illuminance level significantly affects occupants’
satisfaction, it could be examined whether there is an optimal
range for lighting comfort in office spaces. To investigate the
acceptable range for the lighting level, the measured illumi-
nation is categorized into individual levels. So, the collected
values, which were on an interval scale, have been converted
into the ordinal scale. For this purpose, the measured lighting
level was classified into eight ranges. The values of less than
300 lx are in the first category, higher than 900 lx are in the last
category, and the values between these are classified into 100
lx intervals. Then, to determine the more precise range, the
values were classified into 14 categories in the 50 lx range
(Fig. 5).
The highest satisfaction from the environmental lighting
level is provided in the illuminance range of 600e700 lx. The
illumination more than this range results in more satisfaction
compared to lower ranges of lighting. Fig. 5 shows that occu-
pants were more satisfied by the illuminance above 550 lx, and
illuminance between 600 and 650 lx provides the highest
satisfaction levels. Thus, there is an optimal range of satis-
faction with lighting level, and the most preferred lighting
comfort range for these office spaces is 600e650 lx. But the
illuminance above 550 lx is acceptable for most of the
occupants.
3.3. Step 3
In this step, the influence of individual variables on occu-
pants’ response to lighting conditions was first examined.
ANOVA analysis was processed between individual variables
as independent and perceived lighting as the dependent
variable to test the effect of distinct groups (such as
different age groups) on visual perception (Rockcastle
et al., 2017). The relationships between occupants’ light-
ing comfort perceptions and nominal physical parameters
such as type of building and opening adjacencies (one or
two windows to the outside, window to the atrium, or
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651

Fig. 3 Seasonal on-site measured parameters. (a) Illuminance level, (b) indoor air temperature, (c) relative humidity.

rooms without window) were determined by ANOVA ordinal

Table 2 Correlation between thermal and lighting satis- parameters using bivariate correlations.
faction and overall satisfaction. ANOVA analysis results indicated that the response to the
lighting Thermal lighting condition varies according to the occupants’ age group
satisfaction satisfaction and their work type (Table 4). It is worth mentioning that there
is no significant difference in lighting comfort range between
Spearman Correlation 0.629a 0.710a
male and female groups and different working hours during the
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0 0.0
day and presence duration in the office space, as indicated by
N 509 509
a deficient value of F (Ferguson, 2009) and having the p > 0.05.
Bold signifies correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2- To define the acceptable lighting level based on the partic-
tailed). ipant’s age, first, occupants are divided into four groups based
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). on their age: under 30, between 30 and 39, between 40 and 49,
and above 50 years old. Then the mean satisfaction level of
lighting on their desk is calculated, which is presented below:

 Under 30 years old, 716 lx,

 between 30 and 39, 582 lx,
 between 40 and 49, 456 lx,
 above 50 years old, 467 lx.

The results show that the older occupants prefer a lower

illumination rate.
Table 5 represents the relationship between the lighting
comfort and the type of lighting source by the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient. The lighting source includes daylight,
artificial lighting, and a combination of both. In all three cases
(p-value <0.01), there is a meaningful relationship between the
source of light and people’s satisfaction. Based on the corre-
lation coefficient, there is a stronger relationship between
employees’ satisfaction with both lighting sources compared to
only natural or artificial lighting (correlation coefficient of
0.52). Among the natural and artificial lighting, the correlation
Fig. 4 Illumination level and visual satisfaction 1 Z very coefficient between the level of satisfaction and daylighting
unpleasant, 2 Z unpleasant, 3 Z neutral, 4 Z pleasant, (correlation coefficient of 0.48) is higher than the artificial
5 Z very pleasant. lighting (correlation coefficient of 0.29). Thus, both natural and
artificial lighting sources are more effective on the occupants’
lighting comfort than natural or artificial lighting alone.
Table 3 Spearman coefficient between lighting and
Comparing people’s response to illumination and tempera-
thermal satisfaction and illuminance level.
ture in different seasons determines the season’s effect on
Illuminance level lighting Thermal people’s perception of these two factors (Table 6). In general,
satisfaction satisfaction 23.1% of people were dissatisfied with the lighting level, while
Spearman Correlation 0.528a 0.122a people’s dissatisfaction was 27.3% with ambient air
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0 0.0 temperature.
N 509 509 Most studied rooms and participants who filled out the
questionnaire in winter were the same as the summer. There-
Bold signifies correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-
tailed).
fore, different subjective perceptions caused by season should
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). be analyzed to compare the occupant’s perception in winter

645
 M. Fakhari, R. Fayaz and S. Asadi

Fig. 5 Satisfaction with illuminance. (a) Illuminance range, (b) categorized illuminance. Note: For graph (a) 1e5, 1 Z very
unpleasant, 2 Z unpleasant, 3 Z neutral, 4 Z pleasant, 5 Z very pleasant. Graph(b) 1e14, 1Z<300, 2 Z 300e349, 3 Z 350e399,
4 Z 400e449, 5 Z 450e499, 6 Z 500e549, 7 Z 550e599, 8 Z 600e649, 9 Z 650e699, 10 Z 700e749, 11 Z 750e799,
12 Z 800e849, 13 Z 850e899, 14Z>900.

Table 4 ANOVA analysis of individual variables and sub-

Table 6 Paired t-test for visual and thermal satisfaction
jective comfort evaluations.
in winter and summer.
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Mean Std. t Sig.
Squares Square
Deviation (2-tailed)
Age 7.588 4 1.897 2.483 0.043
Visual satisfaction 0.471 1.205 5.92 0.000
Gender 0.574 4 0.143 0.540 0.706
in winter-in
Type of the 12.376 4 3.094 2.815 0.025
summer
work
Thermal satisfaction 0.467 1.922 3.67 0.000
Presence duration 3727.510 4 931.878 0.547 0.701
in winter-in
Working hours 1.474 4 0.368 0.752 0.557
summer
Bold signifies correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-
tailed).
higher than temperature satisfaction because it was already
satisfactory. The satisfaction of the light level in winter is more
Table 5 Correlation between lighting comfort and the than that in summer, while the satisfaction with the ambient
type of lighting source. air temperature in summer is higher.
The availabl daylight available in a room is proportional to
Daylight Artificial light Light level
the amount of light the window receives, depending on how
Correlation Coefficient 0.485a 0.297a 0.528a heavily obstructed it is. The external obstruction is the angle
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 between the normal normal to the glazing center and the line
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). intercepting the building or tree’s edge (Lo et al., 2017; British
Standards Institution, 2007). The obstruction angle in the
studied buildings is divided into five intervals which depend on
the floor on which the room is located. So, in the same
and summer. A paired-samples t-test is conducted to compare building, obstruction varies in the studied rooms. In building
the satisfaction ratings for both conditions. Table 6 shows the t- A, the obstruction level for the studied rooms was mostly 2,
test result for both thermal and visual satisfaction for the effect while in buildings B, C, D, E, and F, the obstruction levels were
of the season on occupants’ satisfaction. It shows that the mostly 2,3,3,2,2, respectively.
season affects the sensation of visual and thermal satisfaction. The linear regression is used to assess whether the
Since the season affects occupants’ perception of light, obstruction level and the floor affect the visual perception
Fig. 6 shows the mean and standard deviation of the occu- responses. The linear regression for the correlation between
pants’ perception concerning the light level and air temper- obstruction level and lighting satisfaction shows that
ature in summer and winter to compare satisfaction level of R2 Z 0.015, and for obstruction level and visual satisfaction
lighting in these seasons. The mean and standard deviation of correlation, R2 Z 0.018, which means the correlations are
light satisfaction in winter is higher than in summer (3.1  0.95 very low. So, the room’s floor and obstruction level makes not
for winter, 2.8  0.7 in summer). This may happen due to the much difference to occupants’ satisfaction with lighting.
simultaneous effect of sunlight and heat in space throughout The evaluation of other environmental parameters’ effect
the summer. In summer, the mean and the standard deviation on the visual satisfaction of occupants (Table 7), shows a sig-
of satisfaction with temperature is higher than in winter nificant correlation between occupants’ lighting satisfaction
(2.6  0.89 for summer, 2.3  0.82 for winter). This means that and type of the building, window orientation, and openings
the satisfaction with lighting level in winter and summer is adjacencies, that influence people’s lighting comfort.

646
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651
Fig. 6 Seasonal comfort level (mean and std. deviation).
The mean and standard deviation of occupants’ comfort
ratings have been analyzed using the descriptive analysis to
investigate staff satisfaction with lighting and temperature.
Here, the parameters that have a significant relationship with
occupants’ comfort are examined to determine each group’s
impact (each building, window orientation, etc.) on employees’
satisfaction. Fig. 7a Shows the mean and standard deviation of
the user’s satisfaction with ambient air temperature and
lighting level are based on the studied office windows’ orien-
tation. The higher satisfaction with these two parameters is in
spaces with two side windows (3.21  0.79), east (3.14  0.85),
and south (3.10  0.72), respectively. The lighting satisfaction
in spaces without windows (2.54  0.94) and west-oriented
windows (2.81  0.73) is minimum. Satisfaction with the tem-
perature in windowless spaces is the highest (2.83  0.96), and
the minimum temperature satisfaction level is in space with
west-oriented windows (2.44  0.85) (Fig. 8).
Fig. 7b Shows the mean and standard deviation in the
occupants’ perception of light level and air temperature in
different adjacencies. The mean and standard deviation of
both lighting and temperature satisfaction in rooms adja-
cent to the atrium on one side with one window on the
other side is the highest (3.45  1.14 for lighting level
satisfaction, 3.16  0.81 for satisfaction with tempera-
ture), and in spaces without any windows, mean and the
standard deviation of satisfaction with temperature and
lighting level is the lowest (2.54  0.94 for lighting,
2.42  0.85 for temperature).
Fig. 7c shows the mean and standard deviation of the
occupants’ satisfaction with each building’s office spaces’
lighting and thermal conditions. The mean and standard
Table 7 ANOVA analysis of physical variables and sub-
jective comfort evaluations.
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Window orientation 16.176 6 2.696 4.004 0.001
Opening adjacencies 14.893 4 3.723 5.553 0.000
Type of building 12.494 5 2.499 3.693 0.003
Bold signifies correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-
tailed).
647
deviation of satisfaction from building B’s lighting envi-
ronment (3.14  0.95) is higher than the other buildings,
and the lowest satisfaction is in building F (2.79  0.82).
Satisfaction with building A’s temperature is the highest
(2.8  0.72), and the minimum satisfaction level is in
building F (2.44  0.85). Thus, it could be concluded that
people’s satisfaction with temperature and lighting varies
based on different buildings.
shows the user’s preferences in using different light
sources based on each building. In general, 57% of people
prefer natural and artificial lighting sources, 42% just
daylighting, and only 1% artificial lighting in their office
environment, which means using natural light is signifi-
cantly desired. Buildings A and C with the most daylighting
are preferred, but in the other buildings, a combination
of natural and artificial lighting is preferred. This is in
line with the study results, which showed that most
people prefer natural light to artificial light (Haans, 2014).
4. Discussions
In this study, the occupants’ response to illumination level
suggests that lighting levels between 600 and 650 lx in office
spaces could lead to a visually comfortable condition for most
occupants. This is in line with an earlier study by Kim and Kim
(2007) in which the task illumination in Michigan should not be
less than 650 lx. However, in the Netherlands, people prefer to
have an average of 800 lx at desk height (Boubekri, 2008). In
France, the desk’s preference for lighting level is 300e600 lx
(Escuyer and Fontoynont, 2001). In Oakland, it is desired to raise
the lower bound of illuminance range from 510 to 560 lx (Vine
et al., 1998). In Hong Kong, the average lighting level of 518 lx
leads to 86% of users’ acceptance; however, if the illuminance
level is more than 750 lx, 96% of office occupants would be
satisfied (Mui and Wong, 2011). In Italy, a study showed that with
a maximum of 413 lx, 74% of occupants confirmed to have
neutral visual sensation (Castaldo et al., 2017). It can be
concluded that people’s preferences for lighting levels are not
the same in different countries and cities. This variation among
acceptable ranges could depend on climate and culture (Boyce,
2003; Nicol et al., 2006), the function of building, and archi-
tecture (Tregenza and Wilson, 2011).
There are some essential points in this study worth
mentioning.
 In this study, the measurement was done in the summer
and winter because of the field study limitations. The
further measure needs to be performed to discuss the
results better. Many questionnaires were completed in
different environments and in two seasons, which could
provide useful information.
 The effort was to select the spaces and participants in the
winter the same as summer. But for some reasons, such as
employees leave of absence from the work or limited ac-
cess to some spaces, in some cases, it was not possible to
repeat the study in the same conditions in some cases. We
mention this as a limitation of our study. Around 64% of
participants in winter were the same as the summer
 Among the various physical parameters that affect visual
and thermal comfort, only the illumination and tem-
perature in this study are examined.
 M. Fakhari, R. Fayaz and S. Asadi
Fig. 7 The comfort levels. (a) In different window orientations. (b) Separated by adjacencies. (c) Type of building.
Fig. 8 Lighting source preferences.
 As this study was conducted only in six buildings, the result
could be case-specific. Further studies could be helpful to
generalize the findings and conclusion of the present study.
 Results show that illumination level has a very low
impact on thermal satisfaction. As this study is a survey,
and data collection was in the real office spaces. Many
other parameters affect the correlation of these two
factors; more studies are needed to investigate this
correlation in a controlled room. Other affecting pa-
rameters controlled be constant.
5. Conclusions
In this study, employees’ visual and thermal comfort limits in
Tehran’s various office spaces during winter and summer were
investigated through field measurements. Measurements
consisted of illuminance on work surfaces, air temperature,
and relative humidity in offices in six buildings in Tehran. The
analysis of these measurements leads to the following
conclusions:
 The measured desktop illuminance was between 77 and
1298 lx in summer and 35e1150 lx in winter. The highest air
648
temperature was 33  C, and the lowest was 17  C. The mean
air temperature in summer and winter was 25.3  C. The
indoor relative humidity was 17.2%e55.1%, with a mean of
34.7% in summer and 25.8% in winter.
 There is a meaningful correlation between occupants’
response to thermal and visual conditions and overall
satisfaction in office spaces. It means that the overall
comfort highly depends on the visual and thermal comfort
of occupants. But the overall comfort depends more on the
thermal situation than the lighting level.
 According to the linear regression, the correlation be-
tween illumination level and lighting satisfaction is
moderate. To define an acceptable range for illumina-
tion, the satisfaction level in each illumination range is
assessed. The comparison between lighting ranges shows
that occupants were more satisfied by the illumination
above 550 lx, and illumination between 600 and 650 lx
provides the highest satisfaction.
 The correlation between illumination level and thermal
satisfaction is very low (illumination level has a meager
impact on thermal satisfaction).
 The lighting condition’s response varies according to the
occupants’ age group, and younger people prefer higher
level illumination. It is worth mentioning that there is no
significant difference in lighting comfort range between
male and female groups and different working hours
during the day and presence duration in the office space
 There is a significant correlation between occupants’
lighting satisfaction and season (season affects the
sensation of visual and thermal satisfaction).
 Type of building, window orientation, and openings adja-
cencies are other environmental factors that impact visual
comfort. External obscurations and the floor level do not
correlate substantially with the occupants’ lighting
satisfaction.
 Both natural and artificial lighting sources are more
effective in the occupants’ lighting comfort than
daylighting. While artificial lighting as the only lighting
source is not acceptable by the occupants.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651

Appendix A. Questionnaire

Table A1 Summary of the survey questionnaire.

Section A- Demographics

Overall age sex Right hand/left hand

Kind of Paper- With Both of Other
work based computer them activities
About the
Working
General work > 8 hours 7-8 hours 4-6 hours < 4 hours
hours
information
For how long you have been working in this room (in a month)?
Do you sometimes have a severe headache?
Visual
Do you have light sensitivity?
problems
Do you use glasses?
Section B- Lighting perception

Please specify the overall assessment of the lighting level in your office:
very little little Average much too much
How do you assess the lighting level at your desk height?
very little little Average much too much
How much is the lighting level of the scene when you look frontward?
Perceived very little little Average much too much
lighting level When you look at your right side, how much is the lighting level of the
scene?
very little little Average much too much
When you look at your left side, how much is the lighting level of the
scene?
very little little Average much too much
Please rate your satisfaction with the room lighting:
very little little Average much too much
Satisfaction of Please rate your satisfaction with lighting when working with a computer:
lighting very little little Average much too much
Please rate your satisfaction with lighting when writing/reading a paper:
very little little Average much too much
What is your desire to increase the amount of light?
The tendency to
very little little Average much too much
change the
What is your desire to reduce the amount of light?
amount of light
very little little Average much too much
Lighting Please rate your satisfaction with lighting distribution throughout the room:
distribution very little little Average much too much
Which one of these lighting sources do you prefer?
Light source
Combination of both of
preferences Daylighting Artificial lighting
them
Section C- Thermal perception

Satisfaction of Please rate your satisfaction with the temperature of the room:
temperature very little little Average much too much

649
 M. Fakhari, R. Fayaz and S. Asadi

Table A2 Building and room data.

Building name:
Building type
Building A Building B Building C Building D Building E Building F
Date: Time:
Floor level
<3 3-6 6-9 9-12
Window orientation
North South West East No window Adjusted to atrium
External obstructions
Almost much Much A half Little Almost none

References Chraibi, S., Lashina, T., Shrubsole, P., Aries, M., van Loenen, E.,
Rosemann, A., 2016. Satisfying light conditions. A field study on
perception of consensus light in Dutch open office environ-
Aimilios, M., Heracleous, C., 2017. Assessment of natural lighting
ments. Build Environ. 105, 116e127.
performance and visual comfort of educational architecture in
Cramer, D., Howitt, D., 2004. The Sage Dictionary of Statistics. A
Southern Europe. The case of typical educational school pre-
Practical Resource for Students in the Social Sciences. SAGE,
mises in Cyprus. Energy Build. 140, 443e457.
London, Thousand Oaks Calif.
Andargie, M.S., Azar, E., 2019. An applied framework to evaluate
Dahlan, N.D., Jones, P.J., Alexander, D.K., Salleh, E., Alias, J.,
the impact of indoor office environmental factors on occupants’
2009. Daylight ratio, luminance, and visual comfort assessments
comfort and working conditions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 46, 101447.
in typical Malaysian hostels. Indoor Built. Environ. 18 (4),
Andersen, M., Kleindienst, S., Yi, L., Lee, J., Bodart, M., Cutler, B.,
319e335.
2008. An intuitive daylighting performance analysis and opti-
Day, J., Theodorson, J., Van Den Wymelenberg, K., 2012. Under-
mization approach. Build. Res. Inform. 36 (6), 593e607.
standing controls, behaviors and satisfaction in the daylit
Aries, M., 2005. Human Lighting Demands. Healthy Lighting in an
perimeter office: a daylight design case study. J. Illumin. Eng.
Office Environment. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Facul-
Soc. 37 (1), 17e34.
teit Bouwkunde, Eindhoven (Bouwstenen, 94).
DiLaura, D.L., Harrold, R.M., Houser, K.W., Mistrick, R.G.,
Objective and Subjective Criteria Regarding the Effect of Sunlight
Steffy, G.R., 2011. A procedure for determining target illumi-
and Daylight in Classrooms. In: Axarli, K., Meresi, A. (Eds.),
nances. LEUKOS 7 (3), 145e158.
2008. Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture.
Escuyer, S., Fontoynont, M., 2001. Lighting controls. A field study
Dublin, 22nd to 24th October. PLEA.
of office workers’ reactions. Light. Res. Technol. 33 (2), 77e94.
Bluyssen, P.M., Zhang, D., Kurvers, S., Overtoom, M., Ortiz-
Ferguson, C.J., 2009. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians
Sanchez, M., 2018. Self-reported health and comfort of school
and researchers. Prof. Psychol. Res. Prac. 40 (5), 532e538.
children in 54 classrooms of 21 Dutch school buildings. Build.
Field, A., 2017. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, fifth
Environ. 138, 106e123.
ed. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.
Boubekri, M., 2008. Daylighting, Architecture and Health. Building
Frontczak, M., Andersen, R.V., Wargocki, P., 2012. Questionnaire
Design Strategies, first ed. Architectural, Amsterdam, Boston,
survey on factors influencing comfort with indoor environ-
London.
mental quality in Danish housing. Build Environ. 50, 56e64.
Boyce, P.R., 2003. Human Factors in Lighting, third ed.
Galasiu, A.D., Reinhart, C.F., 2008. Current daylighting design
Boyce, P.R., Veitch, J.A., Newsham, G.R., Jones, C.C.,
practice. A survey. Build. Res. Inform. 36 (2), 159e174.
Heerwagen, J., Myer, M., Hunter, C.M., 2006. Occupant use of
Galasiu, A.D., Veitch, J.A., 2006. Occupant preferences and
switching and dimming controls in offices. Light. Res. Technol.
satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems
38 (4), 358e376.
in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy Build. 38 (7),
British Standards Institution, 2007. Energy Performance of Buildings
728e742.
d Energy Requirements for Lighting. BS EN 15193:2007. BS EN
Grynning, S., Time, B., Matusiak, B., 2014. Solar shading control
15193:2007. London.
strategies in cold climates e heating, cooling demand and
British Standards Institution, 2008. Lighting for Buildings. Part 2:
daylight availability in office spaces. Solar Energy 107,
Code of Practice for Daylighting, second ed. BSI (British Stan-
182e194.
dard), London. BS 8206-2:2008.
Haans, A., 2014. The natural preference in people’s appraisal of
Buratti, C., Belloni, E., Merli, F., Ricciardi, P., 2018. A new index
light. J. Environ. Psychol. 39, 51e61.
combining thermal, acoustic, and visual comfort of moderate
Heijs, W., Stringer, P., 1988. Research on residential thermal
environments in temperate climates. Build Environ. 139, 27e37.
comfort: some contributions from environmental psychology. J.
Carlucci, S., Causone, F., Rosa, F., Pagliano, L., 2015. A review of
Environ. Psychol. 8 (3), 235e247.
indices for assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in
Iwata, T., Hatao, A., Shukuya, M., Kimura, K.-i., 1994. Visual
optimization processes to support building integrated design.
comfort in the daylit luminous environment: structural model
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 1016e1033.
for evaluation. Light. Res. Technol. 26 (2), 91e97.
Castaldo, V.L., Pigliautile, I., Rosso, F., Anna, L., Cotana, F., 2017.
Jakubiec, J.A., Quek, G., Srisamranrungruang, T., 2021. Long-term
Investigation of the impact of subjective and physical parame-
visual quality evaluations correlate with climate-based
ters on the indoor comfort of occupants. A case study in central
daylighting metrics in tropical offices e a field study. Light.
Italy. Energy Proc 126, 131e138.
Res. Technol. 53 (1), 5e29.
Chellappa, S.L., Steiner, R., Oelhafen, P., Cajochen, C., 2017. Sex
Kim, S., Kim, J., 2007. Influence of light fluctuation on occupant
differences in light sensitivity impact on brightness perception,
visual perception. Build Environ. 42 (8), 2888e2899.
vigilant attention and sleep in humans. Sci. Rep. 7 (1), 14215.

650
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 10 (2021) 639e651
Krüger, E.L., Tamura, C., Trento, T., 2018. Identifying relationships
between daylight variables and human preferences in a climate
chamber. Sci. Total Environ. 642, 1292e1302.
Laurentin, C., Bermtto, V., Fontoynont, M., 2000. Effect of thermal
conditions and light source type on visual comfort appraisal.
Light. Res. Technol. 32 (4), 223e233.
Linhart, F., Scartezzini, J., 2010. Minimizing lighting power density
in office rooms equipped with Anidolic Daylighting Systems.
Solar Energy 84 (4), 587e595.
Lo, V., Valerio, R.M., Mihaylov, G., Pellegrino, A., Pellerey, F.,
2017. Estimation of the daylight amount and the energy demand
for lighting for the early design stages: definition of a set of
mathematical models. Energy Build. 155 (3), 151e165.
Maki, Y., Shukuya, M., 2012. Visual and thermal comfort and its
relations to exergy consumption in a classroom with daylighting.
IJEX 11 (4), 481.
Mardaljevic, J., Christoffersen, J., 2016. ‘Climate connectivity’
in the daylight factor basis of building standards. Build Environ.
Moore, T., Carter, D.J., Slater, A.I., 2002. User attitudes toward occu-
pant controlled office lighting. Light. Res. Technol. 34 (3), 207e216.
Moosmann, C., 2015. Visual Comfort and Natural Lighting at the
Office Workplace. PhD Thesis. Karlsruhe Institution of Thech-
nology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany. checked on 2015.
Mui, K.W., Wong, L.T., 2011. Acceptable illumination levels for
office occupants. Arch. Sci. Rev. 49 (2), 116e119.
National Building Code (NBC) of India, 2005. Part 8, Section 1,
Lighting and Ventilation.
National Building Regulations, 2009. Design and Operation of
Building Electrical Installations.
Newsham, G., Veitch, J., 2001. Lighting quality recommendations
for VDT offices. A new method of derivation. Light. Res. Tech-
nol. 33 (2), 97e113.
Nicol, F., Wilson, M., Chiancarella, C., 2006. Using field measure-
ments of desktop illuminance in European offices to investigate
its dependence on outdoor conditions and its effect on occu-
pant satisfaction, and the use of lights and blinds. Energy Build.
38 (7), 802e813.
Nowak, H., Nowak, L., Sliwin  ska, E., 2016. The impact of different
solar passive systems on energy saving in public buildings and
occupants’ thermal and visual comfort. J. Build. Phys. 40 (2),
177e197.
Reinhart, C., Fitz, A., 2006. Findings from a survey on the current
use of daylight simulations in building design. Energy Build. 38
(7), 824e835.
Reinhart, C.F., Weissman, D.A., 2012. The daylit area e correlating
architectural student assessments with current and emerging
daylight availability metrics. Build Environ. 50, 155e164.
651
Ricciardi, P., Buratti, C., 2018. Environmental quality of university
classrooms. Subjective and objective evaluation of the thermal,
acoustic, and lighting comfort conditions. Build Environ. 127,
23e36.
Rockcastle, S., Amundadottir, M.L., Andersen, M., 2017. Contrast
measures for predicting perceptual effects of daylight in
architectural renderings. Light. Res. Technol. 49 (7), 882e903.
Sharma, L., Kishan Lal, K., Rakshit, D., 2018. Evaluation of impact
of passive design measures with energy saving potential through
estimation of shading control for visual comfort. J. Build. Phys.
42 (3), 220e238.
Sicurella, F., Evola, G., Wurtz, E., 2012. A statistical approach for
the evaluation of thermal and visual comfort in free-running
buildings. Energy Build. 47, 402e410.
Tregenza, P., Mardaljevic, J., 2018. Daylighting buildings. Stan-
dards and the needs of the designer. Light. Res. Technol. 50 (1),
63e79.
Tregenza, P., Wilson, M., 2011. Daylighting. Architecture and
Lighting Design. Routledge, New York.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2008. EnergyPlus. Available online at:
http://energyplus.net/weather.
Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Farley, K.M.J., Newsham, G.R., 2007. A
model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions. COPE
field findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 27 (3), 177e189.
Veitch, J.A., Newsham, G.R., 2000. Preferred luminous conditions
in open-plan offices. Research and practice recommendations.
Light. Res. Technol. 32 (4), 199e212.
Vine, E., Lee, E., Clear, R., DiBartolomeo, D., Selkowitz, S., 1998.
Office worker response to an automated Venetian blind and
electric lighting system. A pilot study. Energy Build. 28 (2),
205e218.
Wienold, J., Christoffersen, J., 2006. Evaluation methods and
development of a new glare prediction model for daylight en-
vironments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy Build. 38 (7),
743e757.
Xue, P., Mak, C.M., Ai, Z.T., 2016. A structured approach to overall
environmental satisfaction in high-rise residential buildings.
Energy Build. 116 (3), 181e189.
Xue, P., Mak, C.M., Cheung, H.D., 2014. The effects of daylighting
and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential build-
ings: a questionnaire survey. Build Environ. 81, 51e59.
Yun, G., Kong, H., Kim, H., Kim, J., 2012. A field survey of visual
comfort and lighting energy consumption in open plan offices.
Energy Build. 46, 146e151.
Zhang, D., Ortiz, M.A., Bluyssen, P.M., 2019. Clustering of Dutch
school children based on their preferences and needs of the IEQ
in classrooms. Build Environ. 147, 258e266.