J. Light & Vis. Elw. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

64

Paper

Preferred llluminance Non‑Uniforrnity ef Interior Arnbient Lighiting
Shigeo KOBAYASHl*,

Masao INUl* and Yoshiki NAKAMURA*** Department of Aichitectuxe , Musashi Institute of Technology

1‑28‑1, Tamazutsumi , Setagaya‑ku, Tokyo, 158‑8557, Japan** Department of Built Environment Tokyo Institute of Technology
4259, Nagatsuta, Midori‑ku, Yokohama, 226‑8502, Japan
Paper originally published in Japanese in J. Archit. Plann. Environ. Eng., AIJ, N0.481, 1996

ABSTRACTIn various interlor spaces, specific trends are often dis med in combinatons of the type of spa and the methodof l hting used. The type of spa determines the type of l hting because of the relatonship between characteristcs
of lighting methods and the ease of rtain behaviors. This study examined the method of l hting preferred for interior

behavbrs. First preferred l hting non‑unformty for behaviors was investigated using a questonnaire. Next, an
experlment was carried out searching for the degree of l hting non‑uniformty preferred for behavbrs using a
reduced soale model. The resutcs of the questonnaire suNey and the experiment were dearly similar, it was possible
to quantitatively predict trends in trle non‑unformity of interior l hting preferred for many other types of behavior notcovered bythis experiment.

KEYWORDS : non‑unforrn lighting, illuminance distributbn, behavior, peduced scale model experiment, brightness
1. Introduction

and other bodies associated with lighting. These standards

While interior spaces can be illuminated in various ways,
we can often discern specific trends in combinations of thetype of space and the method of lighting used. For example,
o :ce rooms are usually equipp ed with general lighting thatprovide, for each workspace, a degree of horizontal

unifornly illuminate s the whole rooms with highilluminance and equal intensity, rather than j ust
muminating individual desks . Places where people dinesuch as restaurants frequently offer a combination ofbrightness and darkness achieved by using pendant lights
or spothghts. Thus, the type of spa

detennines the type of

illuminance for a level plane use d in visual tasks , and are

based on the degree of visual difiiculty for activities.

Research on brightness in actual spaces was based on

exp eriments into ilLuminance around de sks , andilluminance on walls . Bean3) and Slater4)5i) examine ddiculties in seeing in visual environments, sought to linit

unsatisfactory levels of lighting, and proposed lighting
conditions that would not impede visual tasks.
As re gards lighting unifonnity, it had been traditionallylighting because of the relationshi'p betwe en characteristics

recommended tbat the entire spaof lighting methods and the e ase of p erfonuing certain
behaviors.
In reah'ty, lighting design is influenced by a myriad ofilluminated. If lunainance within one 's field of vision werefactors as the scale of the space, the interior decoration, theobtain e qual muminan

budget, and the preferences of the designer. The degree towhich the usage of the space is reflected in the lighting
method used is not altogether clear. The lighting design is acombination of many factors including the number of light

does not always result in the most preferred environment.

sources, their size , the light distn'bution, the light position,and the color temperature of the lighting. To understandthe relationslu'p between the lighting method and thep erformance of certain behaviors, it is necessary to show
lighting methods on some scale. This research investigatesof 0Lice room be evenly

not uniform , the eyes would tire (Rowlandse)) . Uhifonn
lighting was preferable as every position in the room should. However, uniform illuminance

Depending on the behavior and the condr'tions, somedifferences in the lighting distn'bution can inprove theatmos phere.

In addition to research of brightness relating to thefunctionality of behaviors, researchers investigated theeffects of levels of muminance on behaviors. For example,
to investigate the influence of lighting environment oninterpersonal communication, Gifford7) conducted

distn'butions of brightne ss and darkne ss (the non‑experiments based on combinations of illuminance anduniformity of the lighting) to examine the relationsln'p
between interior lighting methods and behaviors.

interior decorations. These experiments found that high

2. Past Research
Existing behavior‑based lighting standards include therecommended munainanoe deternlined by JIS 1) and IES 2)

The lllu'ninating Engineering 1l stitute of Japanmuminance promoted business communication, while low
ilLuminance encouraged intimate communication. Also,
illumjnance promoted business communication, while low
illuminance encouraged intimate counnunication. Also,
Veitch8) measured conversational sound energy level

65.J. Ligh & '/is. Et v. VoL25, f Jo.2, 2001

Various Lighting A4ethods in Various Situations

NonUnifcrmity Level

Preferred Lighting f'or Behavior
on=U

Nou‑Uniform

i fo ' mFi&rifermity's scale

Expre $ing v riou$ l{ghthg metheds on $eale of lighthg rionlJnkrmky

among four students attending female cclleges in a room
vvith vaious illuminances, and found that high illuminan

3.1 Purpose ofQuestionnaire Survey

resulted in lower voices.

interior rion‑unifom lighting in relation to daly behaviors .

Flynn9) io) investigate d irnpressions about rion=mif'orrn

lighting rooms. Semantic differentiai nlethod was used toinvestiga.te subj ech've responses to the non‑'uniformity oflighting. He stated that unifonn wall=lighting appeared tostrengthen inpressions of spaciousness, while nonwifonn

peripherai effected evaluative inpressions. But theseThis survey ained to investigate the distribu'don of

The questionnaire survey was used to enable a large
number of subjects to participate, and because we
demanded them to comprehensively detennine on:1̲y the
relationsln'p of behavilor and non‑u ifom lighting.
Experiments can run into the danger of evaluations being
irrfluenced by the characteristics of the stirnuli themselves,

experiinents targeted on only one pla and did notas the stirnuli are explicit. To evaluate comprehensively theinvestigate lighting nonunifomity as continuity, so theeffect of lighting on behavicr, this survey used amost suitable level of non=unifomity could not be

hypothetical approach that avoided the stirnuii themselve s

expressed.

by describing the behavior and lightirig environment in

Past many researches sought levels of interior

words .

illuuinarlce and unifol nity of lighting targeted on linited

Binern)12) conducted a survey on behavicr and brightness

places and behaviors. The differences between diLferent
types of interior spaces such as office rooms and homes

using a large number of subjects. Quite apart fromwere not examined. This research investigates, for the frst
time, using a questiomaire, broad tren(ls in the levels offunctional aspects of behavior, the sociai variable ('VVho are
you with in this situation?") influenced the lighting level felt

to be ideal. Keeping this result in mind, we decided tobrightness or darkness desired for difi'erent types ofstructurally investigate the relationship of

behavior. We also attenrpted to express, by reduced scale

behavior to preferred lighting non‑unif' onnity.

model experiments, the quantitative di *tribution of levels
ot' lighing and their relationehip to behavior'.

3. Optimal Levei of Nonuniform Lighting i'or
Daily Behaviors

3.2 Survey Outline
As Table I shows, the survey targets a totai of 23 types of
behavicr in six types of place. These behaviors were selectedfi^om among daily places and behaviors, to achieve

The llluinii a,ti

g E?tgi? eering hlsiitute of Japat

J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

66

Japanese subjects took part in this survey. The compositionof the subjects is shown in Table 2.

Table I Targeted behaviors for the survey

Behaviors

Place

home
in the livingroom

3.3 Survey Results and Investigations
The responses of the subjects were expected to varydining with your family
2 thinking
3

depending on their daily environment and their interests.

talking with your family

Therefore , the survey data were classifie d accordirrg to the

4 recervmg guests

attributes of the subjects and average scores were sought

5

for each group. Average scores were little affected by age ornapping

6 reading a newspapersex .

7 having a party

Comparing subjects by occupation, those employed in thelighting field tended to strongly favor non‑unifonu lighting
compared to other subjects, no doubt because of their higher

8 listening to inusic
9 studying

home

10 relaxing

awareness of lighfmg. However, no particular trends fromin your roomll studying

other attributes were noted among the subjects in the

12 sleepinghome

13 taking a shower

In the bathroom

14 looking in the mirror

survey. Therefore , our survey re sults are shown as averagescores based on common trends exili'bited by the subjects asa single group.
Figure 2 shows the desired levels of interior brightness

15

office16

washingworkingand darlmess, and their relationship to behaviors .
Brightness was strongly desired for such behaviors as

17 meeting with people
18 thinking

performing ofG:ce work, studying at school or in one's livingroom , and looking in the bathroom mirror . The se behaviors

19 taking a break

SchoolreStarlrant

20 studying
21 talking with friends

generally include high‑order visual tasks, and from afunctional viewpoint, require brightness. Ahnost no

22 dining with your partner

darkness is required.

23 dining in a group

Behaviors that demanded darkness more than brightness
were sleeping in one's room, napping in the h'ving room,
listening to music in the h'ving room, and dining at aa balance among behaviors including high‑level visualtasks, behaviors including cogniti've tasks, interpersonal
behaviors , and combinations of the se . The que stiounaire

induded items to evaluate four lighting environments inrestaurant wjith one's partner. These behaviors don't reallyinvolve visual tasks, so from a functional viewpoint, require
little brightne ss . In behaviors that actively favor darkness ,regard to behavior: bright environments, darkbrightness is not only unnecessary but disliked no doubt

envirouments , uniform lighting environments, and non‑be cause bright e nvironm e nts include ele m e nts

uniform lighting environments .
The instructions to subjects were, for example: "When you
are talking with your fainil'y in your livirrg room , do you
want the room to be very uniform illurDinate d, do you want
the room to be uniform illurDinate d, do you want the room

unconduchve to these behaviors .
Such behaviors as taking a break at the offi , relaxing in
one's room, or listening to music in the living room do notstrongly favor both brightness and darkue ss . Not only the

to be somewhat uniform illuminated, or don't have any

behaviors themselves, but also the places where they are
perfonued can favor brightness or darkness. For example,

p articular feeling toward uniformity? Show a p ositi've
response to the frst question by a double‑rinlmed drcle, todining favors brightness if the setting is with one's fainily inthe second by a drcle , to the third with a triangle , and thefourth by entering nothing" . The instructions did not specify

uniformity in a particular part of the room. A total of 121
Table 2the living room, or darkness if the setting is with one's
partner in a restaurant. The behavior is the same but thecircumstances are different. Thus, the preference forbrightness or darkness depends not just on the

Oomposition ofthe subjects

Me n

Women sum total

age

35

20 ‑ 29

79

9

21

30‑39

10

19

32

5 l

40 ‑ 49

16

housew ife

o

14

14

50 ‑

16

Stilll tOtal

5 5

66

121

employee in the lighting field

24

11

employee in the other fields

12

student

sum totaJ 1 2 l
All sub.jects

The llluminating EILgineering 11Lstitute of Japan

lre JapaneseJ. Light & Vis . E1 w. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

67

somewhatvery

working at the officebrightness

studying in the iiving roomlll darkness

studying at schoolJlooking in the bathroom mirror

studying in your room
reading a newspaper in the living room
meeting with people ,at the officereceiving guests in the living room
talkinga with youi' family in the living room

dining with your family in the living room
dining at a restaurant in a groupwashing in the bathroom
having a pal'ty in the living room
talking with friends at the school

taking a shower in the bathroom
taking a break at the officerelaxing in your room
ulrinking at the officetlrinking in the iiving room

dining at a restaurant with your partner

listening to music in the living room

napping in the living room

sleeping in your room

Ag:2 Desired levels of brightness and darkness fbr behaviors

so mewhatvery

working at the office
st idying at school

studying in the living room

mxiform lighting

II non‑uluform lighting

studying in your room
looking in the bathroom mirror
reading a newspaper in the living room
meeting with people at the officewashing in the bathroom
taking a shower in the bathroointalking with your fan)ily in the living room
talking with friends at the school

thinking in the living room

dining with your family in the living room
thinking at the officereceiving guests in the living room
dining at a restaurant in a groupnapping in the living room

relaxing in your room

sleeping in your roomtaking a break at the officehaving a party in the living room
listening to music in the living room
diuing at a restaurant with your pai'tner

Rg!3 Desired levels of untorrn lighting and nonlJn brm lighting for behavior

The lllu'ninating Engineering lrvstitute of Japal

J. Light & Vis. E1 bv. Vol.25. N0.2, 2001

68

behavior itself, but also on the circumstances in which thatbehavior takes place.

Table 3 Analysis of 1 4 adjeotives olassfying behaviors

Figure 3 shows levels of uniform lighting and non‑uniform lighting, and the relationship of the two to various
hehaviors . Uriiform lighting was desirable for working at
the o ce, or for studying at home or at school, etc. Thesetypes of behaviors were characterized by high‑order visual

Factor I

Factor II

Factor 111

active

0.938

0.026

‑0.050passive‑o.922‑0.07 lO.125

tasks and orderly de skwork and did not p articularly

self‑centered‑o.807‑0.063

O.509

demand non‑unifoun lighting .
Behaviors favoring non‑uniform lighfmg include dining at

private‑0.763‑O 340

O.481

interpersonal

o.753‑0.082‑0.587a restaurant with one's partner, having a party in the livingsociableo.729‑O. 1 3 l

‑0.645room, or listening to music. These tend to be relaxed

concentratecognitive‑O, 1 12

0.934

‑O 141‑O, 1 65

0.909

‑O. 107

Behaviors that simultaneously demand both brightne ss

relaxed‑0.217‑o.898‑O 026and darkness, such as taldng a break at the o , relaxing
in one's room, or listening to music in the living room,
strongly demand non‑ uniform lighting rather than lighting
uniformity. To achieve both darkness and lightness in thecasual‑O, 175*0.859

0.405

tense

0.267

O 738

‑O.j 79‑O.891behaviors that do not re ally need lighting uniformity .

extraordinary

O.219

O. 124

ordinary‑O. 2 1 5

‑O.4050.843

res pectftll

0.380

O.419

‑O 7j 6Percent Tota:] Variance

32.l

30 7

27.7

same interior space requires non‑uniform, varied lighting.

3.4 Behavior Classification and the Relationship to

the Lighting Environment
The preference for brightne ss and darkness is not only
influen d by the behavior itself, but by the drcumstances.

Accordingly, to gajn a structural understanding of therelationsln'p betwe en the behavior and the typ e of intcrior
lighting environment, we decided to classify behaviors into
different types.

25

iFavor umform Jighting

O

(:;

ce

jf/1 ¥̲1 6･ meeting

:i

(D(&)

Oc')
F 5::{
Oo/ studying O ' ' "' ;",,,

j <bs{ dOn',c studV. Ing ,,,h

Fcl
Favor
brightuess/,' "... . <C> reading a newspaperee<:> thinking

,

{

O
<:)

)

o‑

Q)
:

/

¥‑> r ", ,; #//!}‑ a hi g

L receiVing g les'l looking in the rurror*Ohaving a party

C13

na ?Ping < >sieeping O o taidlll a
O relaxln

O
)

t

H

D d'

>

' C}(ltaking
dining¥a ,wng
na sho<1'j 'erg,ro'taiking ¥vith friendsp( i< talkin with famil ;! g to musie dimng 'ith amily, /,･;/ j"<>

ng w{'tl ,.P. artner //'l;:,living roomo your room

' i " //'/(/'/

c]

(L)

><:)

bathroom

off ice

fcl)
)c ;

(,

school(7vor non‑umfOrnl lighting

Favol' daJ'kness

D restaurant

‑2 5

o

‑2.5 .

passlve,self ‑centered

The scores of the first factor

2.5

actrve,i nterpersonal

Fig4 Factor scores and resufcs of the qvestionnaire survey

The lllulnilLatilLg Engineering 11 stitute of Japan

69

J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

The 23 types of behavior covered in the survey
questionnaire were dr'vided into three responses for 14

represented a space 4.8m wide, 6.4m deep, and 2.5m high.
In addition to various lighting fixtures, we used interior

items taken from Russell3). These responses were "I

decorating materials, interior plants, and fumiture tocertainly think so", "I think so", and "I don't think so". The

replicate the actual atmosphere of an ofiice and living room.

subjects were 20 archi'tectural students.

The contents of the room (computers, tableware, etc.) were

Tre ating the classifications as quantitati've amounts andchanged depending on whether the room was set up as an

seeldng to educe an average score for all subjects, weoflice or as a living room, and care was taken that thesefumishings would not greatly affect the distribution of theluminance or illurainance of the room.
The four types of lighting used in the room were generallighting, task lightirrg, sp otlighting ocal lighting tocarried out factor analysis of the 14 items. This resulted in

the three factors shown in Table 3. The third factor,"ordinary‑extraordinary" , revealed no trends relevant

toward favoring a particular lighting environment.

illunrlnate the center of the room), and wall lightirLg (to light

Therefore , we p lotte d the factor scores for the Lirst (active ,the back walls). By use of a dimmer, we were able to freely

interpersonal vs. passive, self‑centered) and the second

turn on and adj ust the general lighting that illuminate d thefactors (concentration, tense vs. relaxed, casual) in Figure 4

model rooms uniformly and the sp othghting that lit local
spots in the rooms (Figure 6). Or, we could turn on andand comp are d the re sults to the que stionuake survey.
Behaviors favoring brightness fell in the first, second, andadjust both the general lighting and wall lighting (Figure 7).

fourth quadrants, whle behaviors favoring darkness fell inthe third quadrant )assive, self‑centered and relaxed,

This gave us the abili:ty to cre ate any distribution ofbrightness in the model room. The spothghting and wall

casual) . Behaviors favoring uniform lighting mostly fell into

lighting were installed so they could not be on

the first and second quadrants, and can be described as"concentration, tense" behaviors. Behaviors favoring non‑uniforrn lighting mostly fell into the third and fouth

slin ultane ously .

quadrants, and can be described as "relaxed, casual"
behaviors. Thus, the lighting environment favored by abehavior relates to the drcumstans in which the behavior

takes place.

4. Degree of Lighting Non‑Uniformity Favored by
Behaviors
4.1 Purpose ofthe Experiment

4.3 Experiment Methodology
As Figure 5 shows, the subjects placed their heads in themodel rooms and imagined they were seated at a desk
inside the model. By controllirLg both the general lighting
and the spotlighfmg (or wall lighting) for local areas, they
were able to create the most suitable ambient lighting for agiven behavior. Subject only imagined the given situationand did not behave actually .

A total of nine types of behavior were specified, including

The above questionnaire survey aimed to educe overall
scores and does not show any data on spatial positions
relating to lightmg. The survey also did not show actual
brightness and therefore camot expre ss brightne ss andbehaviors for the home and office. These nine behaviors
were selected from among the 23 behaviors used in the

non‑unifornrity as specific quantities. Therefore, to examine

involving visual tasks. The behaviors were also deliberately
based on similar tasks in different environments (bome andoffi ), and care was taken to avoid bias in classifying the
behaviors in Figure 4.

the distribution of the interior brightne ss and darkne ss
favored by various behaviors, we conducted a reduced scalemodel experiment. Certainly, it is not justifiable to basegeneral tendencies for relations between lighting non‑que stionnaire survey, and care was taken to include
behaviors involving visual tasks and behaviors not

unifounity and behaviors on the re sults of model studies

The subjects were 22 Japanese architectural students
selected from among those who had participated in thealone, but the se exp eriments will indicate non‑uniformity toquestionuaire survey.

be tried in full scale studies.

We akeady knew that a certain level of illuminance was
required for areas directly related to visual tasks. Also,

4.4 Experiment Results

visual tasks such as deskwork re quire uniformity of

The index used to express unifiormity of interior lighting
is generally the uniformity ratio . That uniformjlty ratio islighting. Therefore, the aspects of the experiment dealing

4.4. I Expressing Non‑Uniformity in Interior Lightingwith brightness and non‑unifonn lighting had no need to

the ratio between the mean illuminance and minjmum

target desk:work, and so focused on other lighting

illuminance in the target plane, or the ratio between theenvironments.

maximum illuminance and minimurn muminan in the

4.2 Experiment Equipment

or low local illuminance , the unifonuity ratio is an

For the reduced scale model, a one‑eighth scale was used,
as shown in Figures 5. For spaces to target, we selected an

expression of the intensity of light only in certain parts ofoffice room and a home living room as they had different

expressing the distri'bution of the room's illuminance.

characteristics to the sp ace s covere d in the questionnake

Therefore , to expre ss the non‑uniformity of the interior
illuminance , we measure d the horizontal plane illunlinancetarget plane. However, if the space includes areas with highsurvey. For both of these spaces, the reduced scale model

the room and cannot be used as a scale adequately

The lllumilLating Engi, eering Institute of Japan

J. Light & Vis. E1 w. Vol.25. N0.2, 2001

70

General lighting :Spot lighting :nuorescent lamp(40W) X 20

halogen lamp( 130W)
Task lighting :

r'

oo
O

halogen lamp (( l130W )* ,w sColoured filter fr¥lo

all lighting :" .; Subject

312

rorescent np(1>̲ow) x 4

450
ifij

" '" '

1 58

Personal computer i

, 7

56

376

¥ : '

480

,¥'

;Desr
D.

136

O

¥ ¥

:i'i : /f¥ * +**c

S teelr )hair : ; 80"'>¥

subject'l;;'' ' ; :;/ .' "'̲ " ///Decolative plaJ :tCabh} .t .

4
BOokShel¥¥. :=; *!r ..‑‑.'r.̲i f' ̲"" ‑>/ Uni

s 116

m m

64
I1luminance meter

32
LL̲

l

640

300

Office room situation

Tableware, fruit basket

llf
Dining table
D

;

,
¥¥

Wooden Bunch of flowei's

cha 1 ¥¥'

Decorative plantCa{:ge for bh'ds ‑+.,Livingroom situation

RgL5 The section and the plan of the experiment equipment

The lllulnil ating Engineeril g Institute of JapalL

J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

71

unifornl lighting

iEHg B EHEBRHEDEH

non‑uniform lighting

Fig6 Spotiighting and general lighting

uniform lighting

EBEREEEEHRBEB B9

non‑uniform lighting

Fig7 Wall lighting and general lighthg

horizontal illuminancestandard deviation

distribution in the ro rlof common logarithm= non‑urufolmlty l
1

10

lOO I OOO 10000

Illuminance (lx)Fig8 NonlJniformhy jn interior iighting

in several parts of the room and used the standard

at desktop height at 26 equally distributed points

deviation of the common logarithms of that illuminan

throughout the model room.

distribution. For example, with the interior mulrLinancedistributed as in the Fig.8 histogram, when the mean
illuminance (geometrical mean) was "IOO ix" and thestandard deviation of the common logarithms of theilluminance was "I", the non‑unifonuity of the illuminancewas "I". To calculate the non‑unifonuity of the lighing,thisexperim ent measure d the horizontal plane illuminance4.4.2 Preferred Lighting Non‑Uniformity andPersonal Differences
In comparison to findings in past researches and dailylighting environments, the mumination values obtained bythis experiment were very high. Using a scale model
seemed to cause differences in amounts of illuminance

The lllu'rLina,ting EILgilLeering 11 stitute of Japan

J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

72

genera rg tmg on y

spotlig Iting only

3000
variable range of non‑uniformity

w r ngo><:8

meet ngtalk ng witil fa

1 OOO

:

ily

ar

il
,,,:::::;

diaiOthinking:::i::i::;;.

8

ading a n wspaper

i:{

ce
:

'

<>
t h

::i

:;:::: *lrkingnappin'e : office rOOm

: livingroom
l OO

0.4

0.3

O.5

0.7

O.8

non‑uniformity of the room

Rg!9 Preferred nonlJnifbrm lighting (spotiighting and general lightin

wall l}ghting only

genep'al lighting only

3 OOO
ovariable range of non‑uniformityf:lii;i;ii workinj";;i;;:eo meet

8

1 OOOo(L)

studyi::tal king

ith family

dining wi h familyr ading a ewspaper
thinking

qh

O
8

'

ng

::::::

i

thi king

'
{
CES

e)
:)

n pplllgo‑ office room

: livingroom
10

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6
0.5

O.7

O.8

non‑unif'ormity ol

the roomFig 10 Preferred nonlnifbrm lighting (wall lighting and general lightin

The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan

73

J. Light & Vis. Elw. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

S potlighting and general lighting

x 4000

c'

oo
*

=.j

Qoo

:::;:: R

; ; .

)

.:
‑* 1000;

R;:::;:o)o{Q;;i:i:;:;: eo::$ r:;:; e:::: o:i':;;;;italking with your family

at

;

c

iwol king at the office I;:thinking(L)F ," 10002 0.6 0.8

th e of f i ce;;; ; j. .......= } .e I i ving room

0.2
0.4
O. )̲ O.4
O.6 0.8
0.6. non‑uniformity
0.4
of the room
non‑uniformity Of
the 0.8
room
non‑uniformity of the room

̲Wall lighting and general lighting
4000
thinking at the office

o

o,

;

i:i: e o.... talking with your f mii,'i;' in the living room

:1 ....
( )

{

;s.

:{

i=i= o‑ I OOO*o)oc{;;;::i !

;:;;;: !

;s;i:;;;! e;:;:: .

oj
c

o

o

o

R

'

e

l̲

,

;
c

( ) 100;;working at the office
I i {;:i:i:i"""""=

0.2 O,4 O.6 0,8 0.2
non‑uniformity of the room

0.4
0.6
0.8 O.?̲ O.4
0.6
0.8
non‑unifonnity of the room
non‑uniformity of the room

FigL1 1 Ught control values for subjects

perceived in compalrison to the fiill‑scale model. The further

lighting.

work required on the flux distu'bution of lighting fittings to

Figure I I shows the light control values for each behavior

produce de sirable lighting non‑uniformity for behaviors .
However, in a scale model experiment, we considered it wasfor the 22 subjects. Some behaviors resulted in large
variations among indr'viduals, while other behaviors

possible to interpret the relati've results between the
For sp otlightirLg and general lighting, Figure 9 shows theresulte d in little variation in the light control values
selected. Behaviors like working at the offi , which favorhigh illuminance and unif;orm anrbient lighting, produ dme an illuminance and non‑uniformity of interior lighting

little variation among indr'viduals . However, behaviors suchfor various behaviors. Figure 10 shows this for wall lighting

as "thinking in one's h'ving room", which require little

behaviors .

and general lighting. The values in both figures are

munxinance and favor non‑uniform ambient lighting,averages for all the subjects. A comparison between Figure

produ d large differences among indr'viduals in the lightcontrol values selected. The fact that few difiierences wererecorded for the former types of behavior suggests that the

9 and Figure I O reve als that sp otlighting re sults in higher

overall non‑uniformity than wall lighting. This appears to
be a result of subjects' different tastes for the two lighting

methods. However, the relationship of the hehaviors toatmospheres of enviromuents be relatively fixed. The
atmosphere of environments in which the latter types oflevels of non‑uniformity and levels of mean illuminance isgenerally same for the two lighting methods.
Behaviors such as working at the ofiice or meeting withp eople at the office favor an environment with high me an

behavior take place appears not fixed.

illuminance and unjrform lighting. Behaviors such as
thinking or napping in the living room favor ambient

Based on behavior classifications, we investigatedexperimental results where non‑uniform lighting waslighting with low mean illuminance and non‑unform

preferred. Figure 12 (upper diagram) plots the nine types

5. Relationship between Behavior Classification
and Non‑Uniformity Preferences

The lllulninatilLg EI gineering 1l stitute of Japan

J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.25, N0.2, 2001

74

concentration, tensew orstll dna at the off'ice

ing m the livmg roomm ting ¥vith peo le at the office

thinkurg ,1 the o ficethi l'ng in the livinO roomrea ing a newspaper in thOpassive, self‑centeredn'apphm the li¥,10ng loomdh

living room
acti ve , interTpersonal

O O talking with y our family in the living roomng with your family in the li¥'ing room

relaxed, casualBeg,aviors classificd(fl'om Figure.4)

mean illunxinance of' the room ax)
0.3'tudying in the living r om O

Ow rking at the offi eOmeet' rg with people t the office

8 04
oo '
(L>

thinkina at the of' ce

H

o;)

*

'

reading a news aper in the liv' Ig roonin theO talking wit your fal rilyllliving room

O.5

a(,o

linillg With yOtll' f'( nilynll the living room

:$]

c{

oc{

O thinl'cing in the living room

0.6

napping in the living room

1 OO

oo

500
The results of' the experiments(spotlighting and general lighting)

FigL1 2 Relationship between behaviors classification and nonlJnifbrmky preference

The lllulnil ating Engineering 11Lstitute of Japan

75

訊Lεgん診（覧V茗s．E1ω．VbZ．251ハ五〇．2，2001

ofda丑ybehavio欝susedinthereduoed副emodel

Re艶re聡ces

expe血entson伽o魚ctoでaxesof拝ac擬ve，interPersonalvs．

（1）JIS（Japa鷺ese

pass短e，se恩centeredRゑcommende（l Leve】除ofInun血ation（1979）（2）1．E．S．Com血挽e on Reoommenda昼ons f斐）r Quah敏andandooncentration，もense

casuε卍values．Fig耀e12Gower
behavio鴛s
and

on

an

ob五（1uebehaviors

higher
the

are

the

n㎜ber

鋤（i

of

s圭m丑arThe
onbothprefbn℃d

rela廿vepositionsdiagrams．In

ot滋er

Hght血g，theclass蚤edasi丑u鋤ance

level

the

words，theg℃eat￡r

as貿ac擬ve，搬tβηperso簸a1牌．Thehighergreaむerofi丑um血ance，theofbe｝1aviors｛童ass遺ed

themearL血te］do翌i丑u曲ance

mean血te撮or

oonoen往a駐on，tensethedねgram）d蛤樋bu』tesax蛤ofnon−un土50r血旬．

vs．繋elaxe（i，t溢e

韓ぞelaxe（1，casual

the

。The

an（i皿u血ance

non−un想o面ty

numberofbehaviors

relationshipbetweenrelatオonship between the 23取pes of behavior and the
pre免買ed brigh勧ess，darkness，un愚o㎜hgh伽g，and non・

un想orm ligh血g as shown 血 Figure 4．Wb丑e theques頓on頗re s㎜ey was not based onεm ac姻1igh伽9
血犯薮or

皿u曲ance

皿u血ancerequ並edshowedtherela怠onship（池t雌bution，
ft）r

not

ofε皿pre飽置ed

onlyfun（ガona1v蛤ual捻sks．

of皿u皿ination，Sele磁o薮of還曲ancevalues｛bぎtnte煎or hgh血g d．esign（RQQ Repo枕No．6）」．lluエ血a血g Eng血ee血g S（xゴe敬9−3， pp．188499（1980）（3〉ARBean，AG．Hop㎞：Taskεmd badくgro㎜d lig｝生t血g，
1五ght血g Research εmd Tec㎞ology，12−3，PP．135439（1980）（4）Sla』terA．1．，Boyce．P』R．：111um血ance

V％ere

non−un想or血句血Figu「e12αowerdiagr＆m）re且ec魯thesametrendsasthe

environm．ent，it

Q㎜働y

is

the

li血t？，Ligh血gu纐o舳㌻yResearch

andondesks：

Technology，

22−4，pp．165幅174（1990）（5）Sla敏AJ．，Perry．M．」．，Ca耽erD．」．：111uminanced艶rences between desks：L並ts of acceptab選敏？，
Ligh血g Research and Technology，25−3，pp．91403（1993）（6）E．Rowlands，D』L．Loe，R．M．Mcl捻tosh，KP．Mans五eld：
1五gh血ga（iequa（yoonsidera盤on

Thesα簸emodele琴pe㎞entused血t漉research

In（lustr磁StandaTd）Z9110−1979：

of

and

qual量旬加

su切e（血veof巳ce

assessment

士nte践oでsandbyphysicalmeasurement，CIE−Joum31，4−1（1985）

血vestiga鎗d only a sman n㎜ber of behaviors （血e）．
However，as the dass遺cat症ons of these behaviors were

（7）G遭brd，R：L虚ght，decor，arousa1，00mibrtand
oolnm磁ca犠on，JoαmalofEnvironmenta1Psydhology，

con㎞ed血，the8，pp．177489（1988）（8）Jem漉r A Veitch andpossible
五gh血g

res豆1tsof

t溢e

e濁pe血en始，ittて）pre（五ct疲ends血むhe
pぎe艶nred最）翌manyothershouldbenon一樋ormi旬of血加rior

tM）es

of

behavior

notcoveredbytheexpe血ent
6．

ef艶（沈sonoonversationalSt瞼r七M．K＆ye：皿膿血a廿onso㎜dleve】登andJobcan（五（ia惚eve1犠a廿on，JoumalofEnvironmenta1Psy6hology，8，
pp．223嶋233（1988）（9）Jo㎞E．Flynn：Concepts beyond the I』E．S．f｝amewo難k，

Coη．cl繊sio灘し懸researchinves旋gates，fbrthe痘rst血e，usinga
quest建oma辻e，broadtコfends血出eleve㎏ofbrigh血essor

Ligh血gDesign＆Applica糠on，Nα1，pp．4−11，（1973）（10）Jb㎞E．Fly皿：Astudyofs

切ec糠ve欝esponcestDlow

Hgh血gnon一幅五〇rmitydes登edfbrd醗rent旬pesof

energyandnon㎜田om五gh伽gsystems，L凌ghting

be五avioL In
revealed：Desi帥＆ApP五ca盤oぬ，Nα2，PP．645，（1977）（1）ques鉦omaire，thefb鍛ow血g

Concentra盤on，糖nse韓behaviors

three捷ends

fゑvor

were

bright，樋orm

l珪gh血9．

（2）

hgh血g

㌔A（ガve，血わe4）ersonal騨and韓relaxed，（溶sua1

鉛vor

behεしviors

b亘ght，non−u面o臨hgh血9．

（3），季Passive，se建centeredandreiaxed，（温sua1難behaviors

thedist亘butionoflevelsofhgh七血ga漁dthe辻reぬ盤onshipbehavior，

by鉛e（lucedscalemo（iele驚per㎞enも1℃sults

an（i

the

s囲εぼ；dear圭y，wequa面ta廿ve漉rencesun憩or血敏pre免rred致）r

However，noregar（㎞g

spe面c

of

s（〉αialand（12）D．LBu恨erεmd．P．M．B士ner：

expe血ents．
sulveytoTheresul佑andthe避㎜inance

Env並onment紐P翌e飽埋ed．hgh血glevels：set㎞9，beh段vio望s，an（1血divi（luε疲s，

εuad

Behavior，19−6，pp．695−721（1987）（13）Russel，JA，W＆rd，LM．andPratt，G：鹸c伽eQu曲敏
A顧buted勧Env圭ronments：a鉛ctor anεαy飯c study，
Env並o㎜en楓and Behavior，13，pp．259・288（1981）

make

non・

behaviors．

condh冶ions

pre艶rre（11曲εm，oeu磁o曲敏丑）rqua瞭慧ta盤veclass町beh＆viαsabo蟻tvε血ous

pre鉛renoes：an血加ra（温onsitua鉦onandta＄kdemands，Env士ro㎜ental

variab逝旬among

quest注onnε凝e

can

level

Behavior，21，pp．3−15（1989）

飴vord鍵k，non一皿田orm五gh鉦ng．
Next， we a麓empted to express

were（11）P．M．Biner，D．LB岨er，AR．Ficher and AJ．
Westergren：An a灘ousal oP犠miza慧on model ofbehaviors加thislevels

oould

be

an（l

Hgh血g

paper．

d灘awn
non・

It蛤recommende（ithattherelationshipsof皿㎜血anoeandhgh血gnon−un憩or血ty
血somegiven加Figu膨e9and10sho撮d

fa皿一scaleshouldbeoccupants

response

加stanations．

oon面cted血o笛ce
actua丑y錠）theand

be血ves盤ga鎗d

Pre免翌ably，expe血en』thv血gsu垣eces

room

wheye

behavior．

Tんε1zzμ励乞α伽gE1乞9謡eer加9乃繍観εo！」；αPαπ