Occupants visual comfort assessments: A review of field studies and lab experiments
Introduction
Daylight perception is a significant factor in indoor environmental quality. Occupants’ acceptable light levels should be provided to guarantee comfortable and productive spaces (Chraibi et al., 2016). Daylight not only improves health, awareness, productivity, and sense of comfort but also results in energy consumption reduction (Jakubiec and Reinhart, 2016, Jakubiec and Reinhart, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to understand which factors affect daylight quality and quantity.
Daylighting is a notoriously difficult building performance strategy to evaluate (Reinhart et al., 2006). Many researchers attempt to predict the daylight quantity under varying experimental situations. So far, there are several metrics available and little is known about their application. Daylight indices which have been developed to assess different aspects of visual comfort (i.e., amount of light, light uniformity, light quality, and glare), differ from each other for several features, e.g., their accuracy, simplicity, space, and time discretization (Carlucci et al., 2015). Daylight metrics are implemented in technical standards and rating systems, suggesting simplified methods and values for assessing daylight and glare performance in buildings (e.g., LEED, BREEAM, IES, DNGB, EN 17037, BIS 8206) (Committee, 2019, Konis and Selkowitz, 2017)
Among daylight and visual comfort studies, a group has focused on subjective evaluations via field and lab experiments to acquire information on occupants’ visual preferences (Velds, 2002), investigating the following issues:
- •
effective parameters on daylight perception
- •
metrics’ performance and robustness
- •
metrics’ thresholds
- •
visual comfort issues
- •
development of new metrics for predicting occupants’ visual comfort
Researchers found that not all the existing methods can accurately evaluate visual comfort, which resulted in poor consistency between laboratory-derived measures and occupants’ experience in buildings (Jakubiec and Reinhart, 2016), therefore many researchers are trying to across some issue through the study of human-level cognition. Moreover, satisfying light conditions differ significantly between individuals (Chraibi et al., 2016) due to the known inherent variability between occupants concerning visual comfort perception, preference, and acceptance (Van Den Wymelenberg, 2014). Therefore, there is no consensus yet as to what metric can accurately predict visual comfort, and it is necessary to understand the relationship between metric assessments relative to human evaluations through field studies (Nezamdoost and Van Den Wymelenberg, 2017b).
Previously, several review articles have been published dealing with different issues of visual comfort. Van Den Wymelenberg (2014) compared the existing glare metrics and synthesized the effect of glare and other factors on blinds operation based on several laboratory and field studies. Carlucci et al. (2015) reviewed and categorized visual comfort indices according to common features. The pros and cons of different daylighting assessment methods (e.g. numerical modeling, field measurement, scale model, and manual procedures) are compared by Wong (2017). Dogan and Park (2018), criticized the current CBDM metrics in residential buildings, identified shortcomings, suggested an improved daylight analysis procedure. Pierson et al. (2018) summarized window-based discomfort glare indices and discomfort glare perception definition methods. Allan et al. (2019) reviewed and highlighted the benefits and shortcomings of general lighting and glare measures. Ayoub (2019) reviewed daylight prediction fundamental trends based on weather datasets, sky models, geometry of buildings, and daylight calculation methods. A detailed description of fifty common simulation tools and metric performance are presented in this review. Hamedani et al. (2019) reviewed the existing literature to provide a holistic overview of implemented methods in measuring light-induced physiological responses (i.e. pupil size, eye movement, gaze direction, degree of eye-opening, and blink rate) to objectify perceived glare. Wasilewski et al. (2019) conducted a literature review of Spatio-temporal glare simulation to document the limitations of current methods and assess the potential to apply it in empirical studies.
This paper presents an overview of 58 field studies and lab experiments (2012–2020(, which assessed the relation between visual comfort metrics and occupants’ preferences (i.e., by questionnaires, simulations, and measurements). Since studies were conducted in different building types and geographical locations, the performance of the same metrics is dissimilar or even contradictory. Fig. 1 presents the dispersion of studied metrics.
To evaluate the prediction accuracy of widely used daylight metrics, a global visual comfort database is required. The limited number of studies prohibits building a precise meta-analysis model. In contrast to thermal comfort studies, in which researchers have built a database by gathering and harmonizing data from field studies completed around the world. Which might be used to support comfort metrics (Cheung et al., 2019). By categorizing the visual comfort field and experimental studies based on their methodology and results, the current work tries to address the lack of visual comfort guidelines and comprehensive protocols for evaluating visual performance in buildings.
The included publications are not suggested to comprise a comprehensive representation of the state of the art in this area. Relevant publications that more closely fit in the scope of this contribution were reviewed. The body of literature was made up of eligible papers according to the inclusion criteria such as journal quality, publication year, matching research question. All the reviewed papers are published in authentic and peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Building and Environment, Building and Energy, Applied Energy, Solar Energy, and international conference proceedings such as PLEA and IBPSA). On the other hand, in the daylight community, 2012 was the year IES published LM-83, which documented the definition and calculation procedures for the first two humans-based daylighting design metrics: spatial daylight autonomy and annual sunlight exposure, based on field studies. Since then, subjective studies were conducted to assess the viability of daylight metrics in different climates. Moreover, the purpose of the current study is to investigate only experiments with daylight settings. The authors are aware that there were more studies investigating discomfort glare before 2012. They were removed due to overlap with Wymelenberg’s (2014) review paper. In which, visual comfort data cross-examinations, metric robustness testing, and, data collection methods and results database, were highlighted as first priority for potential future research.
Among reviewed papers, 42 were published during 2016–2020. Furthermore, about half of the studies were conducted in America, while 36% and 26% were in Asia and Europe respectively, and two studies in Australia as presented in Fig. 2. Most studies were conducted in the northern hemisphere (middle latitude about 30-60°N), where seasonal variations are observed on an annual basis. While seasonal variation is relatively low in the tropic, and daylight availability is relatively high.
More than half of the articles investigated office spaces (60%), one third studied educational buildings (34%), four papers explored residential buildings (7%), and 4 studied other building types.
Several methods are known efficient in occupant behavior assessments. In the reviewed studies, subjective assessments are done in natural settings (field) or under controlled conditions (laboratory experiment). Field methods tend to observe, analyze, and describe what exists (e.g. (Mahić et al., 2017, Mangkuto et al., 2017)). While laboratory methods are tightly controlled investigations in which the researcher manipulates the particular factor under study to determine if such manipulation generates a change in the subjects (e.g. (Bian and Luo, 2017, Yamin Garretón et al., 2018)).
In the following sections, first, the methodology of each study type is presented, and the general user assessment methods are described afterward. Second, the results are discussed in four main categories: 1) Confounding parameters in visual comfort studies (i.e., architectural, personal, and lighting-related); 2) evaluation of metric accuracy; 3) newly defined metrics or modified versions of the existing ones, and 4) proposed metric thresholds. Finally, the limitations of existing studies and recommendations for future studies on visual comfort are presented. The authors are aware that many of the existing studies show severe problems in their methodology such as experimental conditions (sampling size, order effect, low stimuli range), statistical analysis (Type-I error and false statistical inferences), and equipment (HDR pixel overflow). Since they are published in highly ranked peer-reviewed journals, this study reports and discusses their methods to point out defects. However, authors do not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would. Fig. 3 shows a research concept map.
Section snippets
Field study and lab experiment methodology
There are three main categories of lighting assessment: questionnaire, measurement, and simulation. Established protocols for describing lighting (CIE 213: 2014; International Energy Agency [IEA] 2016) acknowledge the importance of capturing subjective evaluations in addition to objective photometric information (Allan et al., 2019). Although current simulation tools can produce accurate photometric data (Marty et al., 2003), on-site measurements are sometimes used for calibration. Simulated
Findings of papers
Based on the aforementioned methodologies, the results of studies are grouped into four categories. 1) sixty percent of papers present the most effective parameters on occupants’ visual comfort. 2) eighty-three percent prioritize metrics based on their accuracy in predicting occupants’ visual comfort. 3) forty-five percent redefine the acceptable ranges of different visual comfort metrics, and 4) thirty-four percent present new metrics and models to evaluate visual comfort. The main results of
Lessons learned and limitations
The main objective of most of the reviewed studies was finding the most appropriate prediction models for occupants’ visual comfort. Glare and lighting adequacy metrics were the most studied ones, respectively. Summarizing the result of the reviewed studies on daylight adequacy and glare metrics, the lessons learned and limitations of reviewed studies are mentioned in the following sections.
Future promising trends
It is recommended that future studies investigate and validate applied techniques used in reviewed studies with different datasets and higher numbers of observations. Some insight into future promising trends in visual comfort studies are presented as below:
- -
-Reducing simulation time: according to the high importance of long-term glare assessments for design approaches, besides the higher correlation of subjective glare studies with users’ perceived glare sensation, and the time-consuming process
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (100)
100 Years of daylighting : A chronological review of daylight prediction and calculation methods
Sol. Energy
(2019)- et al.
Daylit offices: A comparison between measured parameters assessing light quality and users’ opinions
Build. Environ.
(2017) - et al.
Variable set points of glare control strategy for side-lit spaces: Daylight glare tolerance by time of day
Sol. Energy
(2020) - et al.
Investigation of visual comfort metrics from subjective responses in China: A study in offices with daylight
Build. Environ.
(2017) - et al.
Subjective survey & simulation analysis of time-based visual comfort in daylit spaces
Build. Environ.
(2018) - et al.
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) - et al.
Satisfying light conditions: A field study on perception of consensus light in Dutch open office environments
Build. Environ.
(2016) - et al.
Blinded by the light: Occupant perceptions and visual comfort assessments of three dynamic daylight control systems and shading strategies
Build. Environ.
(2019) - et al.
Visual discomfort and glare assessment in office environments: A review of light-induced physiological and perceptual responses
Build. Environ.
(2019) - et al.
Prediction of Daylight Availability in a Large Hall with Multiple Facades Using Computer Simulation and Subjective Perception
Procedia Eng.
(2017)
Discomfort glare in open plan green buildings
Energy Build.
Post occupancy evaluations relating to discomfort glare: A study of green buildings in Brisbane
Build. Environ.
Prediction of discomfort glare from windows under tropical skies
Build. Environ.
Importance of building orientation in determining daylighting quality in student dorm rooms: Physical and simulated daylighting parameters’ values compared to subjective survey results
Energy Build.
Verification of simple illuminance based measures for indication of discomfort glare from windows
Build. Environ.
Temporal effects on glare response from daylight
Build. Environ.
Order effects when using Hopkinson’s multiple criterion scale of discomfort due to glare
Build. Environ.
Stimulus range bias leads to different settings when using luminance adjustment to evaluate discomfort due to glare
Build. Environ.
The impact of interior design on visual discomfort reduction: A field study integrating lighting environments with POE survey
Build. Environ.
Predicting visual comfort in side-lit open-plan core zones: Results of a field study pairing high dynamic range images with subjective responses
Energy Build.
Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco
California. Build. Environ.
Daylight glare evaluation with the sun in the field of view through window shades
Build. Environ.
Visual comfort assessment of daylit and sunlit areas: A longitudinal field survey in classrooms in Kashan
Iran. Energy Build.
Identifying relationships between daylight variables and human preferences in a climate chamber
Sci. Total Environ.
Daylight performance and users’ visual appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia
Energy Build.
A pilot daylighting field study: Testing the usefulness of laboratory-derived luminance-based metrics for building design and control
Build. Environ.
Revisiting the national standard of daylighting in Indonesia: A study of five daylit spaces in Bandung
Sol. Energy
Determination of discomfort glare criteria for daylit space in Indonesia
Sol. Energy
Glare from a translucent façade, evaluation with an experimental method
Sol. Energy
Assessment of natural lighting performance and visual comfort of educational architecture in Southern Europe: The case of typical educational school premises in Cyprus
Energy Build.
The daylit area - Correlating architectural student assessments with current and emerging daylight availability metrics
Build. Environ.
Environmental quality of university classrooms: Subjective and objective evaluation of the thermal, acoustic, and lighting comfort conditions
Build. Environ.
An epidemiological approach to daylight discomfort glare
Build. Environ.
Investigation of illuminance-based metrics in predicting occupants’ visual comfort (case study: Architecture design studios)
Sol. Energy
Luminance and vertical eye illuminance thresholds for occupants’ visual comfort in daylit office environments
Build. Environ.
Investigation of existing discomfort glare indices using human subject study data
Build. Environ.
Absolute glare factor and relative glare factor based metric: Predicting and quantifying levels of daylight glare in office space
Energy Build.
User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms
Sol. Energy
Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras
Energy Build.
A review of daylighting design and implementation in buildings
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings: A questionnaire survey
Build. Environ.
Quantification of luminous comfort with dynamic daylight metrics in residential buildings
Energy Build.
How to choose a better envelope design? A balance between energy and daylighting performance
Procedia Eng.
A global evaluation of discomfort glare metrics in real office spaces with presence of direct sunlight
Energy Build.
Degree of eye opening: A new discomfort glare indicator
Build. Environ.
Subjective Assessments of Lighting Quality: A Measurement Review. LEUKOS -
J. Illum. Eng. Soc. North Am.
Effects of realistic office daylighting and electric lighting conditions on visual comfort, alertness and mood
Light. Res. Technol.
Effect of window size and sunlight presence on glare
Light. Res. Technol.
Perceived daylight conditions in multi-family apartment blocks – Instrument validation and correlation with room geometry
Build. Environ.
Cited by (43)
Recent advancements of human-centered design in building engineering: A comprehensive review
2024, Journal of Building EngineeringInvestigation of influential variations among variables in daylighting glare metrics using machine learning and SHAP
2024, Building and EnvironmentAn intelligent optimization method of exercisers' visual comfort assessment in gymnasium
2023, Journal of Building Engineering