Lighting controls: a field study of office workers’ reactions

Abstract

This paper reports a qualitative study of the acceptability of lighting control systems by 41 French office workers, in three sites with dimmable lighting, respectively with manual, semi-manual, and automatic control. The analysis of the results aimed to determine the characteristics of an ideal lighting control system. It appeared that the occupants found automatic continuous daylight-linked systems discreet, but they needed to be able to override them. The complexity of the remote control has led occupants to under-exploit it. Many occupants chose lower artificial light levels when daylight was bright, in order to benefit more from daylight. Automatic dimming with manual choice of illuminance level, optional task lighting, and user friendly control, may be the key elements of an ideal lighting control system.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Love J. Field performance of daylighting systems with photoelectric controls. Proc. of the 3rd European Conference on Energy-Efficient Lighting volume 1, 1995.

Hedenström C , Hedström L , Ottosson A . Measured energy savings and cost-effectiveness of the lighting retrofit at Vattenfall’s office in Racksta. Proc. of Right Light 1, Stockholm, 1991.

Bordass B , Heasman T , Leaman A , Perry M. Daylight use in open-plan offices: the opportunities and the fantasies. Proc. of CIBSE National Lighting Conference, 1994.

Rea M , Rutledge B , Maniccia D. Beyond daylight dogma. Proc. of Daylighting 98 Conference, 1998.

Enrech-Xena, Fontoynont M. Testing a new method to report lighting quality perception based on semidirected interviews: results on 40 offices workers. Proc. of the first CIE Symposium on Lighting Quality (Ottawa), 1998: 92-99.

Blanchet A, Gotman A. L’enquête et ses méthodes:;’entretien coll. Sociologie, Paris: Nathan Université, 1997: 218, no. 19.

Slater A. Lighting controls in offices: how to improve occupant comfort and energy efficiency. Proc. of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference, 1996.

Boyce P. Lighting controls: the user’s point of view. Research Council of Canada, 1984.

Tops AD , Tenner AD , Van Den Beld GJ , Begemann SHA . The effect of the length of continuous presence on the preferred illuminance in offices. Proc. of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference, Lancaster: 1998.

10.

Slater A , Carter D. A field study of lighting levels in offices. Proc. of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference, 1998.

11.

Rubinstein F , Blanc S. On the calibration and commissioning of lighting controls. Proc. of Right Light 14, 1997.

12.

Laurentin C , Berrutto V , Fontoynont M , Girault P. Manual control of artificial lighting in a daylit space. Proc. of Energy Performance and Indoor Climate conference, Lyon, 1998.

13.

Carter D , Slater A , Moore T. A study of occupier controlled lighting systems. Proc of 24th Session of the CIE, Warsaw, 1999: vol. 1, part 2.

14.

Berrutto V , Fontoynont M , Avouac-Bastie P. Importance of wall luminance on users satisfaction: pilot study on 73 office workers. Proc. of the 8th European Lighting Conference, Amsterdam, 1997: 82-101.

15.

Maniccia D , Rutledge B , Rea M , Morrow W. Occupant use of manual controls in private offices. J. Illuminating Engng Soc. 1999; 28: 42-56.

16.

Veitch J , Newsham G. Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: implications for lighting quality recommendations systems. Proc. of 24th Session of the CIE, Warsaw, 1999: vol. 1, part 2.

17.

Jennings J , Rubinstein F , DiBartolomeo D , Blanc S. Comparison of control options in private offices in an advanced lighting controls testbed submitted to the offices. J. Illuminating Engng Soc. January, 2000.

18.

Hedge A. Evaluating the benefits of two-component office lighting: a case study. Report from Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 1998. www.lightforum.com/technology/twocomp.html