Building-In-Use Assessment of Lighting Comfort

  • Jacqueline C. Vischer


Since the widespread introduction of computer screens into modern offices, lighting the work environment has become more complex and difficult than it ever was in the factory. Researchers are learning more about the complex human response to light; lighting technology for buildings is evolving rapidly; yet, in the 1980s, eyestrain and sore eyes were the most frequently reported health problem in office buildings.1 The opportunity for the 90s and beyond is to find ways of installing better and more responsive lighting in the work environment and watch productivity soar.


Thermal Comfort Visual Task Office Building Lighting Technology Design Implication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    L. Harris, and Associates, The Office Environment Index, (Grand Rapids, MI: Steelcase Inc. 1987 ); and Stage One Total Building Performance, ( Ottawa: Public Works Canada 1985 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lighting controls come in the form of individual switching in offices, as well as lights on dimmers, adjustable and movable task lights, light-or movement-sensitive cells to regulate when lights go on and off; windows can be fitted out with a wide variety of adjustable coverings that enable people to receive the amount of daylight they need without engendering glare.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Lighting Handbook, Illumination Engineering Society, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alan Hedge, “Design Innovations In Office Environments,” in W. Preiser, J. Vischer, and E. White eds., Design Intervention: Toward a More Humane Architecture, ( New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991 ), p. 301.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dr. Dale Tiller, personal communication.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The light levels specified for these buildings was 700–800 Lux—about 70 foot-candles.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hedge, “Design Innovations In Office Environments,” p. 301.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.J. Wilkins, I. Nimmo-Smith, A.I. Slater, and L. Bedocs, “Fluorescent Lighting, Headaches and Eyestrain,” Lighting Research Technology, 21 (1), 1989, pp. 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alan Hedge “Lighting the Computerized Office: A Comparative Field Study of a Lensed-Indirect Uplighting System and a Parabolic Downlighting System” Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University, Ithaca N. Y.: October, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belinda L. Collins, Will Fisher, Gary Gillette, and Robert W. Marans, “Second-Level Post-Occupancy Evaluation Analysis” Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Summer 1990, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Vietsch, D.W. Hine, R. Gifford, “End Users’ Knowledge, Beliefs and Preferences For Lighting,” Journal of Interior Design, 19 (2), 1993, pp. 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    W.B. Delaney, P.C. Hughes, J.F. McNells, J.F. Sarver, and T.F. Soules, “An examination of visual clarity with high color rendering fluorescent light sources” (paper presented at I.E.S.Conference, New York, August 1977)Google Scholar
  13. B.L. Collins, “Evaluation of the Role of Luminance Distributions in Occupant Response to Lighting” (Paper presented at C.I.B.S.E. National Lighting Conference, 1990 ): Lighting Group, National Institute of Students and Technology, Gaithersberg, MD.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Richard J. Wurtman, “Biological Implications of Artificial Illumination” (Paper presented at National Technical Conference of Illumination Engineering Society, Phoenix, Arizona, September 1968 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline C. Vischer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations