## 2 The Sustainability Coefficient of Outdoor Lighting Ambiences
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Illumination**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Illuminance**} & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}
**Case of Consideration** & **Likability (L)** & **Intensity (I)** & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(-\) & \(\sigma\) & \(-\) & \(\sigma\) & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\sigma\) & \(-\) & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
6 Main Square & 3.25 & 0.831 & 3.40 & 0.830 & 0.96 & 0.145 & \(-\)2.469 & 0.014 & 0.517 \\
7 Slomsek Square & 3.34 & 0.803 & 3.28 & 0.727 & 1.02 & 0.067 & 1.214 & 0.226 & 0.534 \\
8 Liberty Square & 3.05 & 0.868 & 2.86 & 0.847 & 1.07 & 0.188 & 2.880 & 0.005 & 0.523 \\
9 Park & 3.14 & 0.955 & 2.53 & 0.851 & 1.24 & 0.607 & 7.803 & 0.000 & 0.345 \\
10 Market & 2.66 & 0.887 & 2.56 & 0.926 & 1.03 & 0.097 & 1.430 & 0.155 & 0.539 \\
11 Ski Slope & 3.88 & 0.927 & 3.89 & 0.965 & 1.00 & 0.011 & \(-\)0.147 & 0.883 & 0.416 \\
12 Clinical Center & 3.00 & 0.765 & 3.33 & 0.778 & 0.90 & 0.329 & \(-\)4.566 & 0.000 & 0.310 \\
13 Pedestrian Bridge & 3.41 & 1.098 & 2.80 & 0.893 & 1.22 & 0.605 & 7.914 & 0.000 & 0.524 \\
14 University & 3.71 & 0.902 & 3.68 & 0.838 & 1.01 & 0.036 & 0.558 & 0.578 & 0.459 \\
15 Theatre & 3.74 & 0.822 & 3.62 & 0.822 & 1.03 & 0.115 & 1.712 & 0.089 & 0.451 \\
16 City Hall & 3.33 & 0.919 & 3.35 & 0.889 & 0.99 & 0.018 & \(-\)0.268 & 0.789 & 0.543 \\
17 Football Stadium & 3.52 & 0.994 & 3.60 & 1.058 & 0.98 & 0.082 & \(-\)0.943 & 0.247 & 0.344 \\
18 Shopping Center & 3.46 & 1.107 & 4.25 & 0.819 & 0.81 & 0.786 & \(-\)9.036 & 0.000 & 0.228 \\
19 Chapel & 3.42 & 0.986 & 2.78 & 1.017 & 1.23 & 0.644 & 7.510 & 0.000 & 0.339 \\
20 Liberation & 2.84 & 0.902 & 2.52 & 0.038 & 1.13 & 0.325 & 4.928 & 0.000 & 0.598 \\ Monument & 3.20 & 0.903 & 3.21 & 0.949 & 1.00 & 0.006 & \(-\)0.088 & 0.930 & 0.575 \\
21 Plague Monument & 3.20 & 0.789 & 3.05 & 0.926 & 1.05 & 0.022 & 0.286 & 0.024 & 0.454 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(\overline{\tau}\), arithmetic mean; \(\sigma\), standard deviation; t, value difference arithmetic test; 2p, bidirectional level of statistical significance; \(\tau\), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._consumption compared to scenarios where lighting compliance is met. This relationship can also be expressed mathematically, as shown in Equation (3). \[\text{Sn}\bigg{\{} \begin{aligned} &\geq 1.00,\text{ lighting is adequate}\\ &<1.00,\text{ lighting is not adequate}\end{aligned}  \tag{3}\]  
The sustainability coefficient (Sn) serves as a theoretical framework for evaluating the visual quality and potential of a particular place. Its use standardizes psychological measurements in consistent units. While a single application can provide results for assessing the visual qualities of a place, it can also be applied multiple times to compare the results before and after spatial changes or to observe the evolution of a space over time. New ideas are gradually emerging in the scientific community. The basic definition of the sustainability coefficient (Sn) still leaves questions unanswered, as it gives an estimate of something that cannot be measured precisely, such as human opinion. Proving the validity and applicability of the sustainability coefficient was the next research step. Does the Sn value reflect environmental comfort? Is there a correlation between the values of the sustainability coefficient and the subjective indicators of lighting efficiency? We can assume that the value of the sustainability coefficient warns us against excessive lighting. The subjective perception of intense lighting with low lighting sympathy only leads to energy loss and light pollution. This could be the main benefit of the sustainability coefficient. In essence, achieving an optimal Sn is a multi-layered endeavor that requires a nuanced approach that harmoniously combines technical lighting adjustments with architectural and environmental considerations.