buildings

Article
Status of Typical Artificial Lighting Environments in Different
Public Buildings in China, and Requirements for
Their Improvement
Qingxuan Liang 1,2,† , Ling Jin 1,3,† , Tao Luo 4,5 , Jiaxin Shi 1,3 , Peng Xue 1,3, * , Jiaping Liu 1,3 , Bin Wang 6
and Xuan Jin 6

1 Beijing Key Laboratory of Green Building Environment and Energy Saving Technology,
Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
2 Logistics Service Center of the Chinese Academy of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry,
Beijing 100091, China
3 Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Technology,
Beijing 100124, China
4 China Academy of Building Research, Institute of Building Environment and Energy Efficiency,
Beijing 100013, China
5 Jianke EET Co., Ltd., Institute of Building Environment and Energy Efficiency Beijing Research,
Beijing 100013, China
6 Beijing Capital Development Co., Ltd., Shoukai Zhixin Branch, Beijing 100020, China
* Corresponding: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +86-18813030116; Fax: +86-10-67391608-803
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: The luminous environment is an essential factor that affects people’s working and living
experiences in buildings. In order to clarify the building luminous environment parameters that are
required for occupant satisfaction, we collected 2553 completed questionnaires while conducting field
measurements of new and updated luminous comfort metrics in 15 contexts in four cities in China. By
developing a five-step approach to identifying the luminous environment needs of different building
occupants, including data cleaning, correlation analysis, and nonparametric testing, we determined
Citation: Liang, Q.; Jin, L.; Luo, T.; the thresholds for all key metrics for each scenario. The research results show that different public
Shi, J.; Xue, P.; Liu, J.; Wang, B.; Jin, X. building environments have unique luminous environment improvement requirements, and this
Status of Typical Artificial Lighting conclusion can guide future lighting design, LED technology and daylighting integration technology.
Environments in Different Public
Buildings in China, and Keywords: interior lighting; public buildings; key factors; satisfactory thresholds; luminous comfort
Requirements for Their Improvement.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092283

Academic Editor: 1. Introduction

Lambros T. Doulos 1.1. Luminous Environment
Received: 10 August 2023 Architectural lighting is an essential part of public building environment creation
Revised: 28 August 2023 because light affects human health and wellbeing [1–4], as well as luminous comfort [5,6] to
Accepted: 1 September 2023 various degrees. In public buildings like offices, markets, and roads, luminous comfort has
Published: 8 September 2023 always been a critical factor in designing appropriate lighting conditions [7–9]. However,
different public buildings have unique luminous requirements. For instance, 500 lx is
recommended for deskwork in classrooms, whereas 100–300 lx is suitable for computer
work in offices [10,11]. Therefore, to improve luminous comfort, it is crucial to consider
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. the specific lighting demands of each context and adjust the factors of the luminous
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
environment accordingly.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and 1.2. Luminous Comfort
conditions of the Creative Commons
Luminous comfort is a crucial aspect of achieving high-performance building design.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
However, defining luminous comfort, particularly under artificial lighting, remains a chal-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
lenge due to a lack of standardization. The most widely accepted approach to defining

Buildings 2023, 13, 2283. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092283 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 2 of 20

luminous comfort is the “NON-annoyance approach”, which assumes that “comfort is

not discomfort” [12,13]. In fact, it is easier to evaluate discomfort quantitatively and quali-
tatively than comfort, which lacks a clear definition [14,15]. Studies on artificial lighting
comfort testing primarily fall into two categories. The first type is laboratory-based, where
rooms are equipped with shading devices to eliminate the influence of daylighting [8,16,17].
The other is a study of the luminous environment at night, including surveys [18,19].
Currently, evaluating the comfort of the luminous environment mainly relies on occu-
pant experiences regarding the quantity and quality of light in a specific context. Some
researchers have measured this comfort level in terms of occupant satisfaction with their
perceptual experiences. However, it has been noted that satisfaction with the luminous
environment can be influenced by various factors, including physical environmental pa-
rameters. In this study, “luminous comfort” is defined as occupant satisfaction with the
luminous environment created by artificial lighting [20,21].
Individual differences in luminous comfort can significantly affect how satisfactory
occupants perceive the luminous environment to be [22,23]. Therefore, there is currently
no consensus on which factors can accurately predict luminous comfort. To better under-
stand the relationship between factor assessments and occupant evaluations, it is necessary
to conduct extensive fieldwork [24,25]. The major factors affecting occupant comfort
include illuminance and correlated color temperature (CCT) in the luminous environ-
ment [26–28]. However, the preferred illuminance level varies significantly depending on
the context [29,30], and some researchers have suggested using different CCTs for working
and relaxation purposes. Occupant evaluations have also led to the proposal of metrics for
evaluating luminous comfort, such as percent flicker and the flicker index [31,32]. Flicker is
a primary cause of luminous discomfort in public buildings, it can occur as an impression
of unsteadiness of visual perception induced by a light stimulus whose luminance or
spectral distribution fluctuates with time [33,34]. The flicker index (PI), which measures
the ratio of the difference between the maximum and minimum light output of a light
source to the sum of the maximum and minimum light output, is an important factor for
assessing flicker. Moreover, there is a significant correlation between occupant satisfaction
and luminance distribution [35]. Correlations have been found between the brightness
of indoor surfaces and occupants’ visual experiences of a space. For example, increas-
ing the illuminance of walls can make a room more visually stimulating [36] and also
enhance the acceptability and comfort of brightness [37]. High brightness perception has
been associated with increased comfort and spaciousness evaluation [31]. Moreover, the
image-forming pathway or its interaction with the non-image forming pathway can affect
physiological factors and mood [38,39]. Recently, an increasing number of metrics have
been proposed to quantify non-visual effects based on current findings, which have been
strongly related to comfort [40–42]. As a result, the number of evaluation dimensions for
luminous environments is expanding, and new factors are being identified [43]. Therefore,
future studies on lighting design must consider these newly proposed metrics to better
understand occupant needs and create luminous environments that promote well-being.

1.3. Evaluation of Luminous Comfort

As science and technology continue to advance, new luminous factors are emerg-
ing, and evaluation methods for the luminous environment are also improving. Earlier
evaluations focused on objective factors such as illuminance, brightness, and CCT [44,45].
Researchers employed one-way and multivariate analyses of variance to explore the effects
of these factors on occupants’ perceptions of luminous environments [46]. More recent
studies have primarily relied on user questionnaires to evaluate subjective components [47].
The evaluation involves having subjects make appraisals of lighting situations (a single
factor), which the experimenter then processes through a statistical analysis [48]. Flynn’s
research has demonstrated how environmental lighting can influence user impressions
and behavior through different lighting arrangements [49]. Similarly, Kruithof et al. have
investigated the impact of combinations of illuminance and CCT on occupant satisfaction,
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 3 of 20

finding that high CCTs and high illuminance levels are generally preferred [50]. In addition,
some researchers have focused on analyzing the relationship between objective and sub-
jective factors through factor analysis. S Fotios et al. used regression analysis to study the
correlation between luminous factors and human experience [51], while Aries employed
path analysis to explore the relationship between subjective and objective factors in lumi-
nous comfort [52]. Furthermore, when examining indoor environments, Mak et al. relied on
Mann–Whitney U tests to evaluate differences in preferences between two populations [53].
Questionnaire surveys are often considered a more comprehensive method for assessing
factors affecting luminous comfort compared to factor analysis. The chosen evaluation
methods play a crucial role in determining the results of the evaluation process. While
subjective questionnaires may better express participants’ true feelings, parametric analysis
can provide a more accurate representation of the current state of public buildings [54].
However, there is currently no consensus in the scientific literature regarding the optimal
approach for evaluating environmental factors and the intended use of a building.

1.4. Purpose of This Study

Many previous evaluation studies have been conducted on different types of public
buildings using various statistical analysis methods, often with inconsistent conclusions
regarding luminous environments. In order to identify the key metrics and thresholds
affecting occupant comfort, this study used a large-scale simultaneous on-site measurement
and questionnaire survey approach across five distinct types of public buildings. A unified
five-step statistical analysis procedure was then employed to identify the critical factors and
thresholds for each typical scenario. The results of this study can provide valuable guidance
for creating and improving comfortable luminous environments in public buildings.

2. Methodology
In order to identify the key metrics and thresholds affecting occupant luminous
comfort, this study began by conducting simultaneous on-site measurements and a ques-
tionnaire survey. A five-step statistical analysis procedure was then employed for each
typical scenario, as illustrated in Figure 1. By using this methodological approach, we
can better understand the complex interplay between various environmental factors and
occupant experiences of luminous environments.

2.1. Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in this study included questions about personal information,
prior experience with luminous environments, and overall environmental satisfaction, as
well as physical and psychological questions. All questions were rated on a five-point
Likert scale, where 1 represented “very dissatisfied” and 5 represented “very satisfied”.
Items related to experiences with luminous environments focused on perceptions of each
factor, such as illuminance (vertical and horizontal), luminance contrast, space brightness,
CCT, color rendering index (CRI), and flicker. To reduce potential bias in responses, a
large number of questionnaires were collected to ensure robust conclusions. Questionnaire
items and rating scales were kept simple and consistent, with descriptions were crafted
in plain language to minimize the use of technical jargon. All measurements were taken
simultaneously, and the questionnaire was administered during a specific time frame from
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. under artificial lighting conditions. Taking office buildings as an
example, the questionnaire used is shown in Appendix A.

2.2. Pilot Study

To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire used in the main study, a pilot study was
conducted in office buildings with 100 volunteers. Responses from the pilot study were
used to validate the selected statistical methods and confirm the logical and reasonable
nature of the questionnaire items, as shown in Table 1.
 2023, 13, 2283
Buildings 2023, x FOR PEER REVIEW 44of
of 21
20

Figure 1. Analysis flowchart.

1. Bartlett and KMO Test.

2.1. Questionnaire
Table
The questionnaire used
KMO in this study included
Based questions Cronbach
on Standardized about personal
Alpha information,
Coefficient
prior experience with luminous environments, and overall environmental satisfaction, as
office 0.686 0.777
well as physical and psychological questions. All questions were rated on a five-point Lik-
conference rooms 0.791 0.777
ert scale, where 1 represented
corridors 0.628“very dissatisfied” and 5 represented
0.746 “very satisfied”. Items
related to experiences with luminous environments focused on perceptions of each factor,
such as illuminance (vertical and horizontal), luminance contrast, space brightness, CCT,
Based on the results of the pilot study, one item in the questionnaire was modified
color rendering index (CRI), and flicker. To reduce potential bias in responses, a large
prior to the main study.
number of questionnaires were collected to ensure robust conclusions. Questionnaire
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values for sampling adequacy were all greater than
items and rating scales were kept simple and consistent, with descriptions were crafted in
0.6, indicating that the pilot study data were suitable for factor analysis. Additionally,
plain language to minimize the use of technical jargon. All measurements were taken sim-
the Bartlett sphere test confirmed the validity of the pilot study data. Reliability of the
ultaneously, and the questionnaire was administered during a specific time frame from
questionnaire items was assessed using Cronbach’s α coefficient, which ranged from 0.7 to
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. under artificial lighting conditions. Taking office buildings as an
0.8. These coefficients indicated good internal consistency and reliability of the items used
example, the questionnaire used is shown in Appendix A.
in the questionnaire.
2.2. Pilot
2.3. Study
Sampling
To ensure
This study the reliability
focused of the questionnaire
on assessing used in
luminous comfort in public
the main study, aincluding
buildings, pilot study
of-
was conducted in office buildings with 100 volunteers. Responses from the pilot
fices, hospitals, commercial spaces, hotels, and educational facilities. A total of 15 buildings study
were used
across four to validate
cities the were
in China selected statistical
evaluated, as methods
summarizedandinconfirm
Table 2.the logical
The andcities
selected reason-
are
able
all nature of to
considered thebequestionnaire items, as shown
first-tier or super-first-tier, withinwell-established
Table 1. lighting infrastructures
and high standards for environmental quality. This facilitated obtaining evaluations of
“very satisfied” from occupants, which was necessary for identifying important thresholds
for different factors. To ensure data quality, a basic set of standards was applied during
the data cleaning process to describe the status quo of the luminous environment in public
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 5 of 20

buildings, calculate standard-reaching rates, and remove the data that did not meet the
standard [45].

Table 2. Investigation and measurement.

Building Type City Context Data Cleaning Total Valid Issued Standard-Reaching Rate
Office 82
Beijing
Office Conference 246 396 475 62.1%
Shanghai 86
room
Corridor 78
Ward 63
Medical Shanghai Nurse station 57 168 186 249 90.3%
Corridor 48
Lobby 56
Beijing
Commercial Corridor 57 166 210 261 79.0%
Shanghai
Supermarket 53
Guest room 95
Nanjing
Hotel Lobby 83 237 327 384 72.5%
Changsha
Corridor 59
Education Beijing Classroom 606 606 993 1154 61.0%
Total 1423 2112 2553 67.4%

Room selection for the buildings under investigation listed in Table 2 did not have
strict requirements, as the primary goal was to collect a large number of questionnaires.
Rooms were selected with moderate occupant distribution to prevent disturbances during
the luminous environment evaluation process.
Data for the survey were collected between November and December 2019, with
volunteers recruited from the building occupants themselves. Most volunteers did not have
professional experience related to lighting, and the questionnaire was designed in spoken
language to facilitate easy understanding. Each volunteer completed a questionnaire in
their respective context, resulting in a total of 1423 valid questionnaires collected from
the same number of participants. Volunteers’ demographic information is summarized in
Table 3, with all participants being Chinese nationals. Collectively, these data facilitated a
comprehensive evaluation of the luminous environment in various types of public build-
ings, enabling us to identify critical factors and thresholds that can inform future lighting
design and technology development efforts.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of volunteers’ information.

Gender Age
Building Type
Male Female 18–20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59
Office building 174 (70.7%) 72 (29.3%) 0 156 (63.4%) 65 (26.4%) 19 (7.7%) 6 (2.4%)
Medical building 112 (66.7%) 56 (33.3%) 0 38 (22.6%) 39 (23.2%) 46 (27.4%) 45 (26.8%)
Commercial building 80 (48.2%) 86 (51.8%) 0 73 (44.0%) 51 (30.7%) 32 (19.3%) 10 (6.0%)
Hotel building 133 (56.1%) 104 (43.9%) 0 85 (35.9%) 91 (38.4%) 47 (19.8%) 14 (5.9%)
Education building 352 (66.7%) 254 (41.9%) 398 (65.7%) 208 (34.3%) 0 0 0
Total 851 (59.8%) 572 (40.2%) 398 (28.0%) 560 (39.4%) 246 (17.3%) 144 (10.1%) 75(5.3%)

A total of 1423 participants completed the questionnaire, including 851 males and
572 females, with ages ranging from 18 to 59 years (mean age 28.30, SD 9.96). Prior to
the luminous environment evaluation process, volunteers were invited to complete the
questionnaire voluntarily. To compensate participants for their time and effort, small gifts
were provided as rewards.
 Building Type
Male Female 18–20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59
Office building 174 (70.7%) 72 (29.3%) 0 156 (63.4%) 65 (26.4%) 19 (7.7%) 6 (2.4%)
Medical building 112 (66.7%) 56 (33.3%) 0 38 (22.6%) 39 (23.2%) 46 (27.4%) 45 (26.8%)
Commercial building 80 (48.2%) 86 (51.8%) 0 73 (44.0%) 51 (30.7%) 32 (19.3%) 10 (6.0%)
Buildings 2023, 13,
Hotel building 2283 133 (56.1%) 104 (43.9%) 0 85 (35.9%) 91 (38.4%) 47 (19.8%) 6 of 20
14 (5.9%)
Education building 352 (66.7%) 254 (41.9%) 398 (65.7%) 208 (34.3%) 0 0 0
Total 851 (59.8%) 572 (40.2%) 398 (28.0%) 560 (39.4%) 246 (17.3%) 144 (10.1%) 75(5.3%)
2.4. On-Site Measurement
A total
The of 1423
lighting participants
conditions completed
in public thewere
buildings questionnaire,
maintainedincluding
at typical 851 maleslevels
daytime and
throughout the evaluation process, with stable luminaires and no changes made during the
572 females, with ages ranging from 18 to 59 years (mean age 28.30, SD 9.96). Prior to the
luminous
test period. environment
There wereevaluation
no associatedprocess,
risks volunteers
of exposurewere invitedconcerns
or ethical to complete the to
related ques-
the
tionnaire
study voluntarily.
design. To ensureTocomprehensive
compensate participants
data collection,for all
their time and
primary effort,
indoor small gifts
environmental
were provided
parameters wereasmeasured
rewards. and recorded while volunteers completed the questionnaires,
as depicted in Figure 2. Information about the relevant measuring instruments used in the
2.4. On-Site
study Measurement
is summarized in Table 4.
The lighting conditions in public buildingsv were maintained at typical 0.7 daytime levels
throughout the evaluation process, with stable u luminaires
35 ◦ 50 ◦ and no changes made during

of∏ ∏ ◦orL(ethical
u
0.7 N
the test period. There 1.5 ×no
Feu =were = 1.5 ×risks
Lgassociated t exposure θ, φ) concerns related(1) to
◦
θ =−50 θ =−50
the study design. To ensure comprehensive data collection, all primary indoor environ-
mental parameters were measured and recorded while volunteers completed the ques-
LT − LB
tionnaires, as depicted in Figure 2. Information
C= about the relevant measuring instruments (2)
used in the study is summarized in Table 4. LB

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Field
Field test:
test: (a)
(a) office
office building;
building; (b)
(b) medical
medical building;
building; (c)
(c) commercial
commercial building; (d) education
building; (d) education
building; (e) hotel building.
building; (e) hotel building.

Table 4. Measuring instruments and accuracies.

Table 4. Measuring instruments and accuracies.
Measurement Parameters Measuring Instrument Measurement Accuracy
Measurement Parameters Measuring Instrument Measurement Accuracy
Illuminance (E) Illuminance meter (EVERFINE Z-10) ±2%
CorrelatedIlluminance (E)
color temperature (CCT) Illuminance meter(EVERFINE
Spectrometer (EVERFINE Z-10)
SPIC-200A) ±2%±3%
Correlated color temperature (CCT) Spectrometer (EVERFINE SPIC-200A) ±3%
Color rendering index (CRI)
Color rendering index (CRI)
Spectrometer (EVERFINE SPIC-200A)
Spectrometer (EVERFINE SPIC-200A) ±1%
±1%
Luminance(L)(L)
Luminance Luminance
Luminance meter
meter (KONICA
(KONICA MINOLTA
MINOLTA LS-160)LS-160) ±4%±4%
Percentflicker
Percent flicker Stroboscope
Stroboscope (EFB-M)
(EFB-M) ±1%±1%

According to the measured parameters in Table 4, the three important parameters that
affect people’s perception of the luminous environment can be obtained: space brightness
index, luminance contrast and uniformity ratio of illuminance. The calculation of the spatial
brightness index is shown in Formula (1), where Lg is the geometric mean of brightness,
θ is the vertical field of view, –50◦ to 35◦ ; φ is the horizontal field of view, –50◦ to 50◦ ).
The calculation of luminance contrast is shown in Formula (2), where LB is background
luminance; LT is target luminance. And the uniformity ratio of illuminance is the ratio of
minimum illuminance to average illuminance.
For each survey data point, measurements were taken at specific, fixed locations
relative to the participant. The measuring points on the horizontal plane were located
on the desktop surface (at a height of 0.75 m) to measure the horizontal illuminance and
radiation spectrum. The measuring points on the vertical plane were located at the height
of the human eye (approximately 1.2 m), where vertical illuminance and luminance were
measured. According to the measured radiation spectrum data, the values of CCT and CRI
could be obtained by calculation. When evaluating flicker index and percent flicker (PF),
we pointed the stroboscope at the relevant luminaire. For consistency and accuracy, each
parameter at each test point was measured six times, with the average value used to derive
the final results.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 7 of 20

2.5. Data Processing and Analysis

This study proposes a novel five-step method for identifying key metrics and thresh-
olds that contribute to occupant comfort in public buildings. Firstly, a descriptive distribu-
tion of overall satisfaction was obtained through the questionnaire survey. Secondly, the
Spearman rank correlation coefficient test was utilized to identify key subjective factors
(e.g., spatial brightness, illuminance) that influenced participants’ satisfaction with the
total luminous environment. Thirdly, the Mann–Whitney U test revealed the differences
in volunteers’ key subjective perceptions between different overall satisfaction levels and
identified the perceptions that had potential to be improved. Fourthly, data from both the
questionnaires and measurements were encoded and analyzed using SPSS 25, and key
factors that affect potential perceptions were recognized with correlation tests for each
scene. Finally, according to the potential subjective perceptions, the thresholds of the key
metrics were obtained for satisfaction improvement.
Together, these steps allowed us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the
complex factors that influence occupant comfort in public buildings, providing insights that
can be used to inform future efforts aimed at promoting healthier and more comfortable
building environments.

3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis of Overall Satisfaction
The satisfaction rates for the luminous environment in different contexts are shown in
Figure 3. Levels 1 and 5 accounted for less than 5% of the total responses. In order to ensure
data completeness and to facilitate subsequent analysis, levels 1 and 2 were reclassified as
dissatisfaction, level 3 as neutrality, and levels 4 and 5 as satisfaction.
Among the various types of public buildings studied, the highest level of satisfaction
was reported in office environments, with a satisfaction rate of 65%. In contrast, satisfaction
levels in conference rooms were slightly lower, at 45%, and the proportion of dissatisfaction
in this context increased by 17%. Interestingly, despite having the lowest overall satisfaction
rate, of 35%, the corridor did not exhibit a significant increase in dissatisfaction. Rather,
the proportion of neutral satisfaction was found to be relatively high. This may be due to
the fact that corridors are transitional spaces where occupants spend only brief periods of
time. Thus, while the luminous environment in corridors may be less optimal, occupants
may have a higher tolerance for such conditions. In contrast, occupants tend to spend
longer periods of time in conference rooms, leading to higher expectations in terms of
lighting quality and comfort. Meanwhile, occupants in office environments reported the
highest level of satisfaction (with zero reports of dissatisfaction), perhaps because they
spend most of their day in this environment and may have become accustomed to its
lighting conditions.
The classrooms of educational buildings, particularly those in universities, exhibited
a satisfaction distribution similar to that of conference rooms in office buildings. This
similarity may be attributed to similarities in terms of room functions and usage patterns
across these different contexts.
In contrast, hotel buildings showed a distinct pattern of satisfaction levels. While the
overall satisfaction rates in guest rooms and lobbies were similar to those of offices, the
level-5 satisfaction rate was much higher in these spaces, particularly in lobbies, where
it reached 81%. These findings suggest that occupants had a strong appreciation for the
luminous comfort of guest rooms and halls in hotels. However, occupants reported the
highest dissatisfaction levels with corridors in hotel buildings, indicating that the luminous
environment in these transitional spaces was relatively poor.
In both medical and commercial buildings, satisfaction levels with corridors were
substantially higher than in office and educational buildings, reaching 56% and 76%,
respectively. Interestingly, the satisfaction distribution in medical buildings differed from
those seen in other contexts. Specifically, there was an increase in the proportion of levels 1,
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 8 of 20

2, and 5, suggesting that occupants’ evaluations of the hospital’s luminous environment

were relatively complex, posing a challenge for improving such spaces.
In contrast, commercial buildings maintained a high level-4 satisfaction rate of around
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
50%. These findings highlight the importance of considering context-specific requirements
when evaluating and optimizing luminous environments in public buildings.

Figure 3. Overall satisfaction in public buildings.

Figure 3. Overall satisfaction in public buildings.
Among Factors
3.2. Potential the various types of public
for Luminous buildings
Environment studied, the highest level of satisfaction
Improvement
was reported in office environments, with a satisfaction
Using the five-step method described earlier, the potential rate of 65%. Infor
factors contrast, satisfac-
improving the
luminous environment in different contexts of public buildings are given below. dissat-
tion levels in conference rooms were slightly lower, at 45%, and the proportion of
isfaction in this context
For instance, in theincreased by 17%.
case of offices Interestingly,
within despite having
office buildings, the lowest
a Spearman overall
correlation
satisfactionanalysis
coefficient rate, of was
35%,conducted
the corridor did not subjective
to identify exhibit a significant
perceptionsincrease
that hadinadissatisfac-
significant
tion. Rather, the proportion of neutral satisfaction was found
impact on overall satisfaction with the luminous environment. These to be relatively high.
included This
spatial
may be due to the fact that corridors are transitional spaces where occupants spend only
brief periods of time. Thus, while the luminous environment in corridors may be less op-
timal, occupants may have a higher tolerance for such conditions. In contrast, occupants
tend to spend longer periods of time in conference rooms, leading to higher expectations
in terms of lighting quality and comfort. Meanwhile, occupants in office environments
 3.2. Potential Factors for Luminous Environment Improvement
Using the five-step method described earlier, the potential factors for improving the
luminous environment in different contexts of public buildings are given below.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 For instance, in the case of offices within office buildings, a Spearman correlation co-
9 of 20
efficient analysis was conducted to identify subjective perceptions that had a significant
impact on overall satisfaction with the luminous environment. These included spatial
brightness
brightness perception,
perception, CCT
CCT perception,
perception, horizontal
horizontal illuminance
illuminance uniformity
uniformity perception,
perception,
and horizontal illuminance perception, as shown
and horizontal illuminance perception, as shown in in Figure 4. The
The numbers
numbers represent
represent the
correlations between
between each
each subjective
subjectiveperception
perceptionand
andoverall
overallsatisfaction,
satisfaction,with
with ‘*’ *’ indicat-
indicating
ing statistical
statistical significance.
significance.

Subjective perceptions
Figure 4. Subjective
Figure office luminous environment. * means p < 0.05; ** means
perceptions regarding office
means p < 0.01.
p < 0.01.

The results
The results of
of the
thecorrelation
correlationanalysis
analysisindicated
indicatedthat the
that perceptions
the perceptions related to horizon-
related to hori-
tal illuminance had the strongest correlation with overall satisfaction levels
zontal illuminance had the strongest correlation with overall satisfaction levels among among office
of-
occupants,
fice withwith
occupants, a correlation coefficient
a correlation of 0.668
coefficient andand
of 0.668 a high significance
a high level
significance (p <(p0.01
level **).
< 0.01
ThisThis
**). suggests thatthat
suggests horizontal illuminance
horizontal plays
illuminance a critical
plays role role
a critical in shaping occupants’
in shaping per-
occupants’
ceptions of the
perceptions luminous
of the luminousenvironment
environment within offices.
within Additionally,
offices. spatial
Additionally, brightness
spatial was
brightness
found to have a significant correlation with overall satisfaction levels in offices. Conversely,
perceptions related to glare and flicker did not emerge as important factors in this context.
Taken together, these findings suggest that office occupants prioritize the overall brightness
and illuminance quality of their environment when evaluating the lighting conditions. As
such, further research on horizontal illuminance and spatial brightness may be warranted.
However, it should be noted that a correlation coefficient with a high significance level
may result in the same data distribution across different objective function groups. To more
accurately determine the subjective perceptions that influence satisfaction levels in office
lighting conditions, this study employed the Mann–Whitney U test to identify potential
differences in the overall distribution of key subjective perceptions. These findings are
presented graphically in Figure 5, and can help inform efforts aimed at optimizing the
luminous environment within office buildings.
As shown in Figure 5, there were significant differences in the perceptions related to
spatial brightness and horizontal illuminance when the overall satisfaction level with the
luminous office environment was either neutral or satisfactory. These findings suggest
that improving subjective perceptions of these factors may be an effective way to increase
overall satisfaction levels within office environments. Interestingly, there were no significant
differences observed in satisfaction levels with CCT and CRI, indicating that these factors
may be less important when it comes to improving the quality of the luminous environment
in offices.
Overall, the correlation and difference analyses conducted in this study highlighted
the substantial impact that space luminance and horizontal illuminance can have on
occupant comfort within office buildings. As such, these factors should be considered when
identifying key areas for improvement. However, given that satisfaction cannot be directly
improved in practice, it is essential to identify and analyze objective factors that can help
guide improvements in the luminous environment. This is further illustrated in Figure 6.
 level may result in the same data distribution across different objective function groups.
To more accurately determine the subjective perceptions that influence satisfaction levels
in office lighting conditions, this study employed the Mann–Whitney U test to identify
potential differences in the overall distribution of key subjective perceptions. These find-
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 ings are presented graphically in Figure 5, and can help inform efforts aimed at optimizing
10 of 20
the luminous environment within office buildings.

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Figure
Figure 5. Analysis
5. Analysis of of
thethe differencesininoffice
differences officesubjective
subjectivesatisfaction:
satisfaction: (a)
(a) horizontal
horizontal illuminance
illuminance per-
perception;
ception; (b) spatial
(b) spatial brightness
brightness perception;
perception; (c)(c)CCT
CCTperception;
perception; (d)
(d) CRI
CRIperception.
perception.

As shown in Figure 5, there were significant differences in the perceptions related to

spatial brightness and horizontal illuminance when the overall satisfaction level with the
luminous office environment was either neutral or satisfactory. These findings suggest
that improving subjective perceptions of these factors may be an effective way to increase
overall satisfaction levels within office environments. Interestingly, there were no signifi-
cant differences observed in satisfaction levels with CCT and CRI, indicating that these
factors may be less important when it comes to improving the quality of the luminous
environment in offices.
Overall, the correlation and difference analyses conducted in this study highlighted
the substantial impact that space luminance and horizontal illuminance can have on oc-
cupant comfort within office buildings. As such, these factors should be considered when
identifying key areas for improvement. However, given that satisfaction cannot be di-
rectly improved in practice, it is essential to identify and analyze objective factors that can
help guide improvements in the luminous environment. This is further illustrated in Fig-
ure 6.

Figure 6. Objective factors that can help improve the office luminous environment. * means p < 0.05;
Figure 6. Objective
** means p < 0.01. factors that can help improve the office luminous environment. * means p <
0.05; ** means p < 0.01。

As shown in Table 4, several objective factors were found to be significantly related

to the subjective perceptions described earlier, including CCT, CRI, vertical illuminance,
luminance, and spatial brightness index. Of these, both CCT and the spatial brightness
index were highly correlated with the subjective perception of horizontal illuminance, as
well as with occupant satisfaction levels related to spatial brightness. These findings sug-
gest that controlling CCT, CRI, and the spatial brightness coefficient may be instrumental
in improving occupants’ perceptions about the luminous environment in office buildings.
 Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 11 of 20

As shown in Table 4, several objective factors were found to be significantly related

to the subjective perceptions described earlier, including CCT, CRI, vertical illuminance,
luminance, and spatial brightness index. Of these, both CCT and the spatial brightness
index were highly correlated with the subjective perception of horizontal illuminance, as
well as with occupant satisfaction levels related to spatial brightness. These findings suggest
that controlling CCT, CRI, and the spatial brightness coefficient may be instrumental in
improving occupants’ perceptions about the luminous environment in office buildings.

3.3. Thresholds of Potential Factors

In order to guide improvements to the luminous environment in a targeted manner,
this study aimed to identify a reasonable threshold range for key metrics that impact
ldings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW occupant satisfaction levels. Using the office environment as an example, a side-by-side 12 o
violin chart was created to classify satisfaction levels based on these factors, as shown in
Figure 7.

Figure 7. Relationships
Figure 7. Relationshipsbetween theobjective
between the objective factors
factors and and subjective
subjective perceptions:
perceptions: (a)CRI;
(a) CCT; (b) CCT; (b) C
(c) vertical illuminance;
(c) vertical illuminance;(d)
(d)luminance;
luminance; (e)(e) EML;
EML; (f) spatial
(f) spatial brightness
brightness index. index.

To identify a reasonable threshold range for key metrics that impact occupant satis-
It is worth
faction levels,noting
this studythat the large
divided distribution
measured rangefactors
values of these of satisfactory values for lum
based on occupants’
nance and the spatial
perceptions brightness
in the office index Given
environment. may have been due
the absence to differences
of a subjective in surface
perception of refl
tivity“dissatisfaction”
within officeinspaces. Moreover,
offices, the the fact
study divided that occupants
satisfaction spend significant
levels into categories of neutralityperiods
and satisfaction. Based on the relationship between factors
time in these environments may mean that they have become accustomed and satisfaction levels, thetostudy
them, lead
determined threshold values that could be used to guide improvements to the luminous
to a larger acceptable range of brightness levels for human eyes. Overall, this study est
environment in a targeted manner. According to thermal comfort standards, it has been
lished that while the luminance and spatial brightness index are highly correlated w
occupant perceptions about the luminous environment, they should be used more as ba
factors to set limits rather than as indicators of comfort.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 12 of 20

observed that a certain proportion of individuals (i.e., 5%) are consistently dissatisfied with
the thermal environment. Therefore, it has been proposed that the threshold for evaluating
the luminous environment should be set at 95%, as a majority of individuals are expected to
be satisfied under those conditions. By aiming to keep the number of people with neutral
perceptions below 5%, the study found that vertical illuminance should reach 270 lx, CRI
should reach 84, and CCT should be controlled below 5600 K. To optimize occupant comfort
and well-being, CRI and vertical illuminance should be as high as possible. Additionally,
based on Figure 7d,e, luminance should reach 40 cd/m2 , while the spatial brightness index
should reach 10.
It is worth noting that the large distribution range of satisfactory values for luminance
and the spatial brightness index may have been due to differences in surface reflectivity
within office spaces. Moreover, the fact that occupants spend significant periods of time in
these environments may mean that they have become accustomed to them, leading to a
larger acceptable range of brightness levels for human eyes. Overall, this study established
that while the luminance and spatial brightness index are highly correlated with occupant
perceptions about the luminous environment, they should be used more as basic factors to
set limits rather than as indicators of comfort.

3.4. Luminous Environment Improvement System for Office Buildings

The parameters and corresponding thresholds for improving the luminous environ-
ment in office buildings are summarized in Table 5. The first column of the table presents
the details of the Chinese Standard for Lighting Design of Buildings [45], with the aim
of presenting the levels of output derived from this research that should be increased for
future standard recommendations.

Table 5. Parameters and thresholds for improving the luminous environment in office buildings.

Chinese <50034> Satisfaction Increased

Parameter
Current Standard Increased to Neutrality Increased to Satisfaction
Office/Meeting room ≥ 300 lx; Meeting room ≥ 400 lx; Meeting room ≥ 500 lx;
Horizontal illuminance
Corridor ≥ 50 lx Corridor ≥ 65 lx Corridor ≥ 100 lx
Office/Meeting room/ Meeting room ≥ 0.85;
Uniformity of illuminance Meeting room ≥ 0.75
Corridor ≥ 0.6 Corridor ≥ 0.75
Vertical illuminance Not defined Office ≥ 270 lx;
Office/Meeting room
Luminance Not defined Meeting room ≥ 15 cd/m2
≥ 40 cd/m2
Office ≥ 84;
Office/Meeting room ≥ 80;
CRI Meeting room ≥ 83 Meeting room ≥ 85;
Corridor ≥ 60
Corridor ≥ 80
CCT Office/Meeting room ≥ 3300 K Corridor ≥ 4000 K Office ≤ 5600 K
Spatial brightness index Not defined Corridor ≥ 3 Office ≥ 10
Luminance contrast Not defined Meeting room ≥ 0.3

The findings presented in Table 5 do not provide a clear threshold value for parameters
that can enhance the satisfaction level of the office luminous environment from dissat-
isfaction to neutrality. This is primarily due to the exclusion of data that fail to meet
current standards, thereby eliminating instances of dissatisfaction in the analyzed samples.
Moreover, the comparable brightness requirements and visual factors between office and
meeting rooms suggest minimal differences between these two contexts.

4. Discussion
4.1. Comparative Analysis of Different Public Buildings
Building on the analytical process employed for office buildings, the research investiga-
tion was extended to encompass all five categories of public buildings. The outcomes of this
extension are reported in Tables 6–9, with Table 6 specifically detailing the parameters and
threshold values that can augment the luminous environment within educational buildings.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 13 of 20

Occupants of office and educational buildings spend substantial amounts of time work-
ing or studying within these environments. The established standards for these building
types currently share similar criteria and threshold values within typical settings. Through
this study, it was discovered that illuminance and uniformity were nearly identical across
both contexts, while brightness exhibited a notable gap between them. Specifically, the
highly reflective desktops in educational buildings contributed to the measured brightness
values, which, however, did not negatively impact occupant satisfaction. Furthermore,
high wall reflectivity allows for proportional reductions in illumination requirements, cor-
roborating prior research findings [55]. Overall, this study suggests that task illuminance
satisfaction can be effectively achieved through reasonably high room surface reflectance.

Table 6. Parameters and thresholds for improving luminous environment in educational buildings.

Chinese <50034> Satisfaction Increased

Parameter
Current Standard Increased to Neutrality Increased to Satisfaction
Horizontal illuminance ≥300 lx ≥350 lx ≥450 lx
Desk horizontal ≥ 0.6; Desk horizontal ≥ 0.8; Desk horizontal ≥ 0.9;
Uniformity of illuminance
Blackboard ≥ 0.8 Blackboard ≥ 0.85 Blackboard ≥ 0.9
Vertical illuminance Not defined ≥300 lx ≥300 lx
Desk ≥ 30 cd/m2 ; Desk ≥ 45 cd/m2 ;
Luminance Not defined
Blackboard ≥ 10 cd/m2 Blackboard ≥ 15 cd/m2
CRI ≥80 ≥83 ≥85
CCT ≥3300 K ≥5000 K 5000–5600 K
Spatial brightness index Not defined ≥10 ≥15
Desk horizontal ≤ 0.8; Desk horizontal ≤ 0.5;
Luminance contrast Not defined
Blackboard ≤ 0.9 Blackboard ≤ 0.7

Table 7. Parameters and thresholds for improving luminous environment in medical buildings.

Chinese <50034> Satisfaction Increased

Parameter
Current Standard Increased to Neutrality Increased to Satisfaction
Ward ≥ 200 lx;
Ward ≥ 100 lx;
Ground illuminance Nurse station ≥ 150 lx Nurse station ≥ 250 lx;
Corridor ≥ 100 lx
Corridor ≥ 150 lx
Ward ≥ 0.6; Nurse station ≥ 0.7; Nurse station ≥ 0.8;
Uniformity of illuminance
Corridor ≥ 0.6 Corridor ≥ 0.65 Corridor≥ 0.7
Ward ≥ 50 lx
Vertical illuminance Not defined Nurse station ≥ 40 lx
Nurse station ≥ 75 lx
Ward ≥ 20 cd/m2 ;
Luminance Not defined Corridor ≥ 25 cd/m2
Corridor ≥ 20 cd/m2
Ward/Nurse station ≥ 80; Ward/Nurse station/
CRI Corridor ≥ 80
Corridor ≥ 60 Corridor ≥ 85
Ward ≥ 4200 K; Ward: 4200–4500 K
CCT Not defined Nurse station ≥ 4200 K; Nurse station: 4200–5400 K;
Corridor ≤ 5500 K Corridor: 4000–5500 K
PF Ward ≤ 0.03 Nurse station ≤ 0.25 Ward ≤ 0.2
Flicker index Not defined Nurse station ≤ 0.15 Ward ≤ 0.1
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 14 of 20

Table 8. Parameters and thresholds for improving luminous environment in business buildings.

Chinese <50034> Satisfaction Increased

Parameter
Current Standard Increased to Neutrality Increased to Satisfaction
Hall ≥ 200 lx;
Corridor ≥ 150 lx;
Groundilluminance Market ≥ 100 lx;
Market ≥ 300 lx;
Corridor ≥ 100 lx
Hall ≥ 0.6; Corridor ≥ 0.85;
Uniformity of ground
Market ≥ 0.6; Corridor ≥ 0.6 Market (commodity area) ≥ 0.8;
illuminance
Corridor ≥ 0.4 Market (meat area) ≥ 0.85
Vertical illuminance Not defined Corridor ≥ 50 lx
Hall ≥ 75 cd/m2 ;
Commodity shelves ≥ 50 cd/m2 ; Commodity shelves ≥ 75 cd/m2 ;
Luminance Not defined
Fruit and vegetable area ≥ 50 cd/m2 Meat area/Fruit and vegetable area
≥ 100 cd/m2
Hall ≥ 80; Hall ≥ 85;
CRI Market ≥ 80; Market (fruit and vegetable area) ≥ 83 Market (meat area) ≥ 83;
Corridor ≥ 60 Corridor ≥ 85
Corridor ≥ 3300 K;
CCT Not defined Market (meat area) ≥ 2600 K
Market (meat area) ≥ 3200 K
Hall ≤ 0.1;
PF Not defined Market (fruit and vegetable area) ≤ 0.4
Market (fruit and vegetable area) ≤ 0.25
Market (commodity area) ≤ 0.15; Market (commodity area) ≤ 0.1;
Flicker index Not defined
Market (meat area) ≤ 0.25 Market (meat area) ≤ 0.1

Table 9. Parameters and thresholds for improving luminous environment in hotel buildings.

Chinese <50034> Satisfaction Increased

Parameter
Current Standard Increased to Neutrality Increased to Satisfaction
Guest room(bed) ≥ 150 lx;
Horizontal Guest room(desk) ≥ 300 lx; Hall ≥ 240 lx; Hall ≥ 280 lx;
illuminance Hall ≥ 200 lx; Corridor ≥ 70 lx Corridor ≥ 100 lx
Corridor ≥ 50 lx
Guest room (bed/desk/
Hall/Corridor ≥ 0.4; Guest room(bed/desk) ≥ 0.75;
Uniformity of illuminance ground) ≥ 0.7;
Corridor ≥ 0.4 Corridor ≥ 0.65
Corridor ≥ 0.55
Vertical illuminance Not defined Hall ≥ 50 lx; Hall ≥ 100 lx;
Guest room ≥ 30 cd/m2 ; Guest room ≥ 50 cd/m2 ;
Luminance Not defined Hall ≥ 75 cd/m2 ; Hall ≥ 100 cd/m2 ;
Corridor ≥ 20 cd/m2 Corridor ≥ 75 cd/m2
Guest/Hall) ≥ 85;
CRI Guest room/Hall/Corridor ≥ 80
Corridor ≥ 84
PF Not defined Guest room ≤ 0.3 Guest room ≤ 0.1
Flicker index Not defined Guest room ≤ 0.1
Spatial brightness index Not defined Corridor ≥ 10

Medical buildings place a special emphasis on CCT thresholds, with a prevailing

orientation of “the higher the CCT, the better the luminous environment”. However, in
settings involving nocturnal activities such as wards (Table 6), controlling the shortwave
component becomes crucial in reducing patient alertness and promoting recovery. Research
has established the upper limit of CCT in wards at 4500 K, given that public buildings,
notably medical facilities, demonstrate lower levels of satisfaction under high CCT. Conse-
quently, it is necessary to restrict the upper limit of CCT. This need is further accentuated
by patient preferences for a comfortable and warm lighting environment, as patient room
lighting requirements prioritize object recognition over reading. While medical buildings
generally exhibit lower luminous intensity demands compared to other building types,
their requirements for CCT and CRI remain consistent. This highlights the critical nature of
color representation in the luminous environment, with a recommended CRI threshold of
85 in wards that prioritize enhancing patient comfort and warmth.
The parameters and thresholds required to improve the luminous environment quality
in business and hotel buildings are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
 Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 15 of 20

The surveyed commercial buildings exhibited a relatively high level of brightness

within their luminous environments. Given that the upper limit of illuminance was set,
commodity booths were also outfitted with local lighting. Commercial and hotel build-
ings share comparable key metrics and threshold values for their respective luminous
environments; however, the former displays higher environmental demands. Notably, the
recommended thresholds for existing parameters in public building luminous environment
evaluations have been enhanced compared to the established standards for lighting de-
sign [42]. Moreover, newly identified parameters such as the spatial brightness coefficient,
vertical illuminance, EML, luminance, and luminance contrast have been incorporated into
these evaluations.

4.2. Negative Correlations between Subjective Feelings and Objective Factors

The negative relationship between CCT and horizontal illuminance satisfaction, as
reflected in Figure 6, is a noteworthy finding from this study. The correlation coefficient
was −0.415, which is statistically significant at a high level (p < 0.01). This phenomenon is
explained and discussed below as illustrated in Figure 8.
The relationship between office luminous environment satisfaction and horizontal
illuminance satisfaction is positively correlated, as demonstrated in Figure 4 (0.668 **).
However, the CCT range that satisfies occupants is concentrated within the middle range,
indicating a negative correlation. This is especially true for artificial lighting environments
ngs 2023, 13, x FOR PEER during nighttime hours, where it proves challenging to satisfy occupants with a cool CCT
REVIEW
of 6000 K. No significant improvements in subjective perception were observed under other
conditions. Consequently, determining an optimal CCT control is crucial, with an ideal
value of around 5400 K.

Figure 8. CCT distribution in office setting.

Figure 8. CCT distribution in office setting.
4.3. Thresholds of Illuminance, CCT
Illuminance and CCT are widely recognized as critical factors that influence percep-
The and
tual comfort relationship between
preference [17,56]. office
Consequently, luminous
determining environment
optimal thresholds and sati
preferences has remained
illuminance a central focus
satisfaction of lighting research,
is positively as demonstrated
correlated, as in Table 10.
demonstrated
However, the CCT range that satisfies occupants is concentrated w
indicating a negative correlation. This is especially true for artificia
during nighttime hours, where it proves challenging to satisfy occ
of 6000 K. No significant improvements in subjective perceptio
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 16 of 20

Table 10. Related studies on the luminous factors.

Experimental Experimental
Researcher Subjects Factor Conditions Conclusions
Methods Space
Clothing store
Rui Dang et al. Questionnaire 200, 500, 1000, 1500 Highest evaluation:
27 students simulated in a
2018 [57] (satisfaction). 20 min lx; 3000, 4500, 6000 K 1000 lx and 4500 K
laboratory
Preference depends
Questionnaire
Settings for 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 on the activities.
Naoyuki Oi et al. (preference,
8 students “relaxing” and lx; 3000, 4200, 5000, Studying: high
2017 [58] brightness,
“studying” 6500 K illuminance.
naturalness)
Relaxing: low CCT
Blue light reduction
Stéphanie van der Cognitive tests, Laboratory with blue
400–480 nm of screen decreased vigilant
Lely et al. scales, 13 male students light-enriched LED
was 0.32 W/(sr*×m2 ) attention and
2014 [59] saliva samples screen
alertness at night
4000 K was the most
cognitive tasks, naturally perceived
Jae Hoon Ma et al. Immersive virtual 200, 500, 750 lx; 2000,
visual perception 13 male students CCT and obtained
2022 [60] environments 4000, 6500 K
questionnaire highest score task at
all illuminance levels
Lowest mental
Jiayi Bao et al. Questionnaire (Task Laboratory simulated 300–1000 lx;
12 students workload: 3000 K
2021 [61] Load Index), EEG in an office 3000–6500 K
and 750 lx
Brain fatigue comes
The change rate of
Yan Yonghong et al. Classroom simulated 300, 750, 1000 lx; earlier at high
students’ α and β 2 students
2015 [62] in a laboratory 2700, 4000, 6500 K illuminance and high
brain waves
CCT illumination
CCT: >3300 K in
Questionnaire
Actual context in 300–1000 lx; business buildings,
This study (satisfaction) and 1423 volunteers
public buildings 2500–6500 K ≤5600 K in office
field study
buildings

Fotios S have asserted that CCT variation has a negligible effect on brightness and
pleasantness ratings [30]. However, other scholars have discovered that a luminous en-
vironment with a medium CCT and high illuminance (1000 lx, 3500 K) is satisfactory for
commercial buildings or relaxing settings [57]. Similarly, Oi et al. found that a low CCT
and high illuminance environment was preferable for relaxation, while a high CCT and
high illuminance environment was suitable for work [58]. These findings align with the
conclusions drawn from our study, as reflected in Tables 5–9. While there are two possible
reasons for the CCT conclusion drawn in this study, namely the influence of uncontrollable
variables under field conditions and the restrictions on lighting settings under fixed en-
vironment satisfaction surveys, it is worth noting that our investigation allowed for CCT
and illuminance adjustments during testing. Volunteers did not prefer environments with
extremely low or high CCT values, indicating that their preferences and comfort levels were
effectively reflected. Jae Hoon MA compared task scores and perception scores between
4000 K and 6500 K light environments, revealing that the former surpassed the latter, im-
plying that a high CCT is insufficient in meeting personnel office needs [60]. Additionally,
blue-rich lighting has been shown to improve performance, reduce subjective sleepiness,
affect the circadian system, lengthen sleep latency, and prevent cognitive fatigue [59–62].

4.4. Limitations
While the investigation results provided an accurate reflection of on-site requirements,
it should be noted that investigations conducted in medical buildings revealed that most
wards turned off their lights by 19:30. Additionally, when lights were turned on at night, a
lower luminance mode was often selected, thus potentially limiting the analysis results.
Another limitation of this study was the use of a five-point scale for evaluation.
While such scales are widely used and can provide reliable results, some psychometricians
recommend using seven or even nine levels to obtain more accurate and precise data.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 17 of 20

5. Conclusions
Based on the investigation and objective measurements for public buildings among
four cities in China, a set of analysis methods was developed and employed to identify
objective factors and thresholds required to improve luminous environment satisfaction
under different contexts. These findings provide a theoretical basis that could assist
government officials and researchers in updating existing standards, enhancing their
understanding of such standards, and facilitating further research aimed at creating better
luminous environments in the future. The specific conclusions are as follows:
(1) Current lighting standards were met in over 60% of public building contexts.
Based on the results, once all indicators comply with the standards, the personnel
satisfaction rate can exceed 30%. To establish a comfortable and effective light environment,
the building should aim to maximize color rendering while still meeting the illuminance
standard. To enhance user productivity and attention, incorporating lighting control
strategies like intelligent color temperature adjustment in buildings is recommended.
(2) Different environments have distinct demands for optimizing the lighting conditions.
Through a descriptive analysis of both subjective and objective results, it was found
that distinct contexts have specific requirements for enhancing the luminous environment.
For example, office buildings and educational buildings are places where occupants typ-
ically work or study for extended periods. In these contexts, occupants place emphasis
on the perception of horizontal illuminance, with those working in office buildings also
paying attention to the perception of space brightness and those in educational buildings
additionally considering the perception of CCT. The differing scene requirements neces-
sitate the adoption of various classic, new, and updated factors for evaluating comfort
levels. These factors include CRI, CCT, vertical illuminance, luminance contrast, and spatial
brightness index.
(3) By utilizing a specific set of metrics and thresholds, the required level of improvement
in each scenario was quantified.
This study identified key metrics and their corresponding thresholds to enhance the
light environment in office buildings (Table 5), educational buildings (Table 6), medical
buildings (Table 7), commercial buildings (Table 8), and hotel buildings (Table 9) across
three levels: unsatisfactory, neutral, and satisfactory. Taking an office as an example, to
increase satisfaction with the luminous environment from neutral to satisfactory, the CCT
should be controlled below 5600 K. Additionally, the vertical illuminance, luminance, and
spatial brightness coefficients should reach 270 lx, 40 cd/m2 , and 10, respectively.
The research findings have identified key metrics and thresholds necessary for im-
proving luminous comfort in public buildings and could guide future lighting design, LED
technology, and daylighting integration technology.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L. and B.W.; methodology, T.L., Q.L., P.X. and J.L.; formal
analysis, J.S.; investigation, Q.L. and J.S.; resources, B.W. and X.J.; data curation, T.L.; writing—original
draft preparation, Q.L. and L.J.; writing—review and editing, L.J., P.X., B.W. and X.J.; visualization,
Q.L. and J.S.; supervision, T.L., P.X. and J.L.; funding acquisition, X.J. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (L221024) and
Beijing Capital Development Co., Ltd. (2023110012000467).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available as they are not stored on a publicly
accessible repository.
Acknowledgments: This research was funded by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation
(L221024) and Beijing Capital Development Co., Ltd., (2023110012000467). The authors would like to
thank Lin Xia and Moujie Ye from East China Architecture Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd.,
for their valuable support.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 18 of 20

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix
Buildings 2023, 13, x A
FOR PEER REVIEW 1
The specific content of the questionnaire is as follows:

References References
1. Rea, M.S.; Figueiro,
1. Rea,M.G.;
M.S.;Bierman,
Figueiro,A.; Bullough,
M.G.; Bierman,J.D.A.;
Circadian
Bullough,Light. J. CircadianLight.
J.D. Circadian Rhythms 2010, 8, Rhythms
J. Circadian 2–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2010, 8, 2–11.
2. Wang, S.; Zhao,
2. J.; Wang,S.;L.;Zhao,
Wang, Hu, W.; Yan, F.L.;
J.; Wang, A Mathematical
Hu, W.; Yan, F.Model for the Action
A Mathematical Spectrum
Model for theofAction
Steady-State PupilofSize
Spectrum in Photopic
Steady-State Pupil Size
Vision with Insight into
topic Healthful
Vision Lighting.
with Insight Buildings
into 2023,
Healthful 13, 781.Buildings
Lighting. [CrossRef]2023, 13, 781.
3. Jin, L.; Xue, P.; Zhang, L.; Wang, J.; Shi, J.; Liang, Q.; Cao, X.; Xu, N.; Liao, J. Visual and non-visual effects of integrated l
based on spectral information. Build. Environ. 2023, 242, 110617.
4. Potočnik, J.; Košir, M. The Necessity for Multi-Spectral Simulations of the Indoor Non-Visual Luminous Environment:
plified Annual Approach. Buildings 2023, 13, 1357.
5. Boyce, P.R. Human Factors in Lighting, 3rd ed.; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2014.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 19 of 20

3. Jin, L.; Xue, P.; Zhang, L.; Wang, J.; Shi, J.; Liang, Q.; Cao, X.; Xu, N.; Liao, J. Visual and non-visual effects of integrated lighting
based on spectral information. Build. Environ. 2023, 242, 110617. [CrossRef]
4. Potočnik, J.; Košir, M. The Necessity for Multi-Spectral Simulations of the Indoor Non-Visual Luminous Environment:
A Simplified Annual Approach. Buildings 2023, 13, 1357. [CrossRef]
5. Boyce, P.R. Human Factors in Lighting, 3rd ed.; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2014.
6. Ochoa, C.E.; Capeluto, L.G. Evaluating visual comfort and performance of three natural lighting systems for deep office buildings
in highly luminous climates. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 1128–1135. [CrossRef]
7. Tong, L.; Liu, N.; Hu, S.; Lu, M.; Zheng, Y.; Ma, X. Research on the Preferred Illuminance in Office Environments Based on EEG.
Buildings 2023, 13, 467. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, Q.; Xu, H.S.; Gong, R.; Cai, J.Q. Investigation of visual fatigue under LED lighting based on reading task. Optik 2015, 126,
1433–1438. [CrossRef]
9. Collier, J.M.; Wilkerson, A.; Durmus, D.; Rodriguez-Feo Bermudez, E. Studying Response to Light in Offices: A Literature Review
and Pilot Study. Buildings 2023, 13, 471. [CrossRef]
10. Freewan, A.A.Y.; Dalala, J.A.A. Assessment of daylight performance of Advanced Daylighting Strategies in Large University
Classrooms; Case Study Classrooms at JUST. Alex. Eng. J. 2020, 59, 791–802. [CrossRef]
11. Dubois, M.C. Shading devices and daylight quality: An evaluation based on simple performance indicators. Light. Res. Technol.
2003, 35, 61–76. [CrossRef]
12. Rasheed, E.O.; Khoshbakht, M.; Baird, G. Time spent in the office and workers’ productivity, comfort and health: A perception
study. Build. Environ. 2021, 195, 107747. [CrossRef]
13. Wymelenberg, K.; Inanici, M.; Johnson, P. The effect of luminance distribution patterns on occupant preference in a daylit office
environment. Leukos 2011, 7, 103–122. [CrossRef]
14. Xue, P.; Mak, C.M.; Ai, Z.T. A structured approach to overall environmental satisfaction in high-rise residential buildings. Energy
Build. 2016, 116, 181–189. [CrossRef]
15. Iacomussi, P.; Radis, M.; Rossi, G.; Rossi, L. Visual Comfort with LED Lighting. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 729–734. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, Q.; Xu, H.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Z. Influence of color temperature on comfort and preference for LED indoor lighting. Optik
2017, 129, 21–29. [CrossRef]
17. Cho, Y.; Ryu, S.H.; Lee, B.R.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, E.; Choi, J. Effects of artificial light at night on human health: A literature review
of observational and experimental studies applied to exposure assessment. Chronobiol. Int. 2015, 32, 1294–1310. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
18. Liu, G.; Xu, Y.; Dang, R.; Luo, C. The Research of Triadic Relation among Building Spaces, Lighting Comfort Level and Lighting
Energy Consumption in High-speed Railway Station in China. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 854–865.
19. Zencirci, A.D.; Arslan, S. Morning-evening type and burnout level as factors influencing sleep quality of shift nurses: A
questionnaire study. Croat. Med. J. 2011, 52, 527–537. [CrossRef]
20. Xue, P.; Mak, C.M.; Huang, Y. Quantification of luminous comfort with dynamic daylight metrics in residential buildings. Energy
Build. 2016, 117, 99–108. [CrossRef]
21. Xue, P.; Mak, C.M.; Cheung, H.D.; Chao, J. Post-occupancy evaluation of sunshades and balconies’ effects on luminous comfort
through a questionnaire survey. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2016, 37, 51–65. [CrossRef]
22. Chraibi, S.; Lashina, T.; Shrubsole, P.; Aries, M.; Loenen, E.V.; Rosemann, A. Satisfying light conditions: A field study on
perception of consensus light in Dutch open office environments. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 116–127. [CrossRef]
23. Gou, Z. Human factors in green building: Building types and users’ needs. Buildings 2019, 9, 17. [CrossRef]
24. Lolli, N.; Nocente, A.; Grynning, S. Perceived control in an office test cell, a case study. Buildings 2020, 10, 82. [CrossRef]
25. Shafavi, N.S.; Zomorodian, Z.S.; Tahsildoost, M.; Javadi, M. Occupants visual comfort assessments: A review of field studies and
lab experiments. Sol. Energy 2020, 208, 249–274. [CrossRef]
26. Lan, L.; Hadji, S.; Xia, L.; Lian, Z. The effects of light illuminance and correlated color temperature on mood and creativity. In
Building Simulation; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2021; Volume 14, pp. 463–475.
27. Boyce, P.R.; Cuttle, C. Effect of correlated colour temperature on the perception of interiors and colour discrimination performance.
Light. Res. Technol. 1990, 22, 19–36. [CrossRef]
28. Lu, M.; Hu, S.; Mao, Z.; Liang, P.; Xin, S.; Guan, H. Research on work efficiency and light comfort based on EEG evaluation
method. Build. Environ. 2020, 183, 107122. [CrossRef]
29. Veitch, J.A. Psychological processes influencing lighting quality. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 2001, 4480, 124–140. [CrossRef]
30. Fotios, S. A revised Kruithof graph based on empirical data. Leukos 2017, 13, 3–17. [CrossRef]
31. Manav, B. An experimental study on the appraisal of the visual environment at offices in relation to colour temperature and
illuminance. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 979–983. [CrossRef]
32. Iwata, T.; Hatao, A.; Shukuya, M.; Kimura, K. Visual comfort in the daylit luminous environment: Structural model for evaluation.
Light. Res. Technol. 1994, 26, 91–97. [CrossRef]
33. CIE S 017/E:2011; ILV: International Lighting Vocabulary. Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage: Vienna, Austria, 2011.
34. Hamedani, Z.; Solgi, E.; Skates, H.; Hine, T.; Fernando, R.; Lyons, J.; Dupren, K. Visual discomfort and glare assessment in office
environments: A review of light-induced physiological and perceptual responses. Build. Environ. 2019, 153, 267–280. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 2283 20 of 20

35. Hwang, T.; Jeong, T.K. Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor Built
Environ. 2011, 20, 75–90. [CrossRef]
36. Ooyen, M.V.; Weijgert, J.V.D.; Begeman, S. Preferred luminances in offices. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 1987, 16, 152–156. [CrossRef]
37. Carter, D.; Slater, A.; Perry, M.; Mansfield, K.; Loe, D.; Sandoval, J. The influence of luminance distributions on subjective
impressions and performance within a non-uniformly lit office. In Proceedings of the CIBSE National Lighting Conference,
London, UK, March 1994.
38. Kort, Y.D.; Veitch, J.A. From blind spot into the spotlight. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 39, 1–4. [CrossRef]
39. Smolders, K.; Kort, Y.D. Bright light and mental fatigue: Effects on alertness, vitality, performance and physiological arousal. J.
Environ. Psychol. 2014, 39, 77–91. [CrossRef]
40. Heerwagen, J.H.; Heerwagen, D.R. Lighting and psychological comfort. Light. Des. Appl. 1986, 16, 47–51.
41. Carlucci, S.; Causone, F.; Rosa, F.D.; Pagliano, L. A review of indices for assessing visual comfort with a view to their use in
optimization processes to support building integrated design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 1016–1033. [CrossRef]
42. Boyce, P.R. Light, lighting and human health. Light. Res. Technol. 2022, 54, 101–144. [CrossRef]
43. Xie, J.C.; Xue, P.; Mak, C.M.; Liu, J. Balancing energy and daylighting performances for envelope design: A new index and
proposition of a case study in Hong Kong. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 13–22. [CrossRef]
44. Alzoubi, H.H.; Al-Rqaibat, S.M. The effect of hospital design on indoor daylight quality in children section in King Abdullah
University Hospital. Jordan Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 14, 449–455. [CrossRef]
45. GB 50034: 2013; Standard for Lighting Design of Buildings. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China,
2013.
46. Kong, Z.; Hou, K.; Wang, Z.; Chen, F.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, C. Subjective and Physiological Responses towards Interior Natural
Lightscape: Influences of Aperture Design, Window Size and Sky Condition. Buildings 2022, 12, 1612. [CrossRef]
47. Fotios, S. Using category rating to evaluate the lit environment: Is a meaningful opinion captured? Leukos 2019, 15, 127–142.
[CrossRef]
48. Hawkes, R.J.; Loe, D.L.; Rowlands, E. A note towards the understanding of lighting quality. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 1979, 8, 111–120.
[CrossRef]
49. Flynn, J.E.; Spencer, T.J.; Martyniuk, O.; Hendrick, C. Interim study of procedures for investigating the effect of light on impression
and behavior. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 1973, 3, 87–94. [CrossRef]
50. Kruithof, A.A. Tubular luminescence lamps for general illumination. Philips Tech. Rev. 1941, 6, 65–73.
51. Portnov, B.A.; Fotios, S.; Saad, R.; Kliger, D. Establishing optimal illuminance for pedestrian reassurance using segmented
regression. Light. Res. Technol. 2022, 14771535221080649. [CrossRef]
52. Aries MB, C.; Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 533–541. [CrossRef]
53. Xue, P.; Mak, C.M.; Cheung, H.D. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings:
A questionnaire survey. Build. Environ. 2014, 81, 51–59. [CrossRef]
54. Aste, N.; Tagliabue, L.C.; Palladino, P.; Testa, D. Integration of a luminescent solar concentrator: Effects on daylight, correlated
color temperature, illuminance level and color rendering index. Sol. Energy 2015, 114, 174–182. [CrossRef]
55. Yener, A.K. A method of obtaining visual comfort using fixed shading devices in rooms. Build. Environ. 1998, 34, 285–291.
[CrossRef]
56. Davis, R.G.; Ginthner, D.N. Correlated color temperature, illuminance level, and the kruithof curve. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 1990, 19,
27–38. [CrossRef]
57. Dang, R.; Weil, L.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, G. The impact of physical environments in satisfaction in shopping centers. In Proceedings of the
7th International Building Physics Conference, IBPC2018, Syracuse, NY, USA, 23–26 September 2018.
58. Takahashi, N.O.H. Preferred combinations between illuminance and color temperature in several settings for daily living activities.
In Proceedings of the 26th Session of the CIE, Beijing, China, 4–11 July 2007; pp. 214–215.
59. van der Lely, S.; Frey, S.; Garbazza, C.; Wirz-Justice, A.; Jenni, O.G.; Steiner, R.; Schmidt, C. Blue Blocker Glasses as a Countermea-
sure for Alerting Effects of Evening Light-Emitting Diode Screen Exposure in Male Teenagers. J. Adolesc. Health 2014, 56, 113–119.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Ma, J.H.; Lee, J.K.; Cha, S.H. Effects of lighting CCT and illuminance on visual perception and task performance in immersive
virtual environments. Build. Environ. 2022, 209, 108678. [CrossRef]
61. Bao, J.; Song, X.; Li, Y.; Bai, Y.; Zhou, Q. Effect of lighting illuminance and colour temperature on mental workload in an office
setting. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Yan, Y.; Yan, N.; Guan, Y.; Zeng, H. Impact on brain wave rhythm and learning efficiency by colour temperature of artificial light
sources. J. Civ. Architect. Environ. Eng. 2015, 1, 76–79.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.