## 3 The Integral Role of Lighting in Urban Environment
However, there are two exceptions to this trend. Sacred buildings and parking lots are areas where respondents are generally against reducing lighting. An analysis of the correlation coefficient (\(r\)) shows that all cases have moderately correlated distribution functions. The coefficient values range from 0.528 for lighting areas in pedestrian zones in the city center to 0.700 for lighting the facade of public buildings. There is considerable variation in the perception of the importance of lighting among different types of public spaces and objects. These differences suggest a wide range of expectations and needs regarding urban lighting within the study sample population. The consistently low \(p\)-values for most lighting themes indicate a general consensus among participants about the importance of lighting in these areas. This indicates a shared understanding of the safety, aesthetic, and functional value of lighting in urban environments. Correlation coefficients indicate a moderate to strong linear relationship between importance and missing values for most subjects, indicating consistent perceptions of the value and dispensability of lighting across urban elements. The generally higher mean scores for importance for most subjects reflect a high level of agreement within the surveyed \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Subject of Illumination**}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Importance Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Missing Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**l\(\mathbf{1}\)Difference \(\mathbf{x}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**t**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**2p**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**r**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-10} \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & – & & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \(\mathbf{x}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma}\) & \(\mathbf{x}\) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Public Surfaces} & Arterial roads & 3.66 & 0.917 & 3.23 & 1.114 & 0.430 & 6.237 & 0.000 & 0.559 \\  & Urban local roads & 3.51 & 0.919 & 3.36 & 1.032 & 0.145 & 2.438 & 0.016 & 0.634 \\  & Pedestrian zones in centre & 3.97 & 0.763 & 3.76 & 0.905 & 0.215 & 3.709 & 0.000 & 0.528 \\  & Streets of medieval town & 3.81 & 0.837 & 3.51 & 1.027 & 0.300 & 4.823 & 0.000 & 0.571 \\  & Urban squares & 3.90 & 0.868 & 3.62 & 0.960 & 0.285 & 4.972 & 0.000 & 0.611 \\  & Footpaths in city park & 3.56 & 0.944 & 3.34 & 1.127 & 0.215 & 3.352 & 0.000 & 0.629 \\  & Sport objects surfaces & 3.13 & 1.022 & 2.98 & 1.154 & 0.150 & 2.174 & 0.031 & 0.604 \\  & Parking lots & 3.06 & 1.013 & 2.93 & 1.077 & 0.125 & 1.925 & 0.056 & 0.616 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Objects} & Facade of shopping malls & 2.77 & 1.121 & 2.51 & 1.169 & 0.255 & 3.730 & 0.000 & 0.644 \\  & Facade of public buildings & 2.85 & 0.972 & 2.59 & 1.094 & 0.255 & 4.462 & 0.000 & 0.700 \\  & Facade of sacral buildings & 3.60 & 1.121 & 3.65 & 1.247 & –0.065 & –0.783 & 0.435 & 0.653 \\  & Bridge construction & 3.75 & 0.902 & 3.39 & 1.097 & 0.360 & 5.712 & 0.000 & 0.618 \\  & Statues and momuments & 2.97 & 0.972 & 2.58 & 1.077 & 0.395 & 5.877 & 0.000 & 0.574 \\  & Greenery (trees, shrubs) & 2.15 & 1.034 & 2.00 & 1.051 & 0.145 & 2.188 & 0.030 & 0.596 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{x}\), arithmetic mean; \(\sigma\), standard deviation; t, value difference arithmetic test; 2p, bidirectional level of statistical significance; r, Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Analysis of Lighting Significance in Different Urban Areas. population regarding the need for lighting, underscoring its role as a key component in urban design and planning. Of note is the negative difference for the facade of sacred buildings, indicating a unique pattern of emphasizing the importance of lighting, possibly reflecting respect for the sanctity and original aesthetics of such buildings. In essence, lighting is not only a functional component of the urban environment, but an essential component of the city's identity, safety, functionality, aesthetics, and overall success.