Users’ experiences of lighting controls: a case-study

Article

Published Version

Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0

Open Access

van Someren, K. L., Beaman, C. P. and Shao, L. (2018) Users’ experiences of lighting controls: a case-study. Lighting Research & Technology, 50 (7). pp. 1091-1106. ISSN 1477-1535 doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153517709063 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/70087/

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing .

To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477153517709063

Publisher: Sage

All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement .

www.reading.ac.uk/centaur

CentAUR

Central Archive at the University of Reading

Reading’s research outputs online

Users’ experiences of lighting controls:A case-studyKL van Someren PGDipSurva, C Philip Beaman PhDb and L Shao PhDa

aSchool of the Built Environment, University of Reading, Reading, UKbSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University ofReading, Reading, UK

Received 31 January 2017; Revised 11 April 2017; Accepted 18 April 2017

The aim of this paper is to elucidate how occupants perceive their lit environmentsin a university setting and how they interact with lighting controls using qualitativemethods. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with academic teaching andresearch staff. Thematic analysis identified four main themes: control and choice,connection with the outdoors, concentration and comfort. Participants were largelyable to control and adapt their lighting using small power lighting in office spacesand they perceived this as beneficial to comfort and concentration. Participantsexpressed frustration with the light switches in classrooms, and a lack ofconsistency in lighting controls across the university buildings was particularlynotable. Installers should consider how piecemeal upgrades on large estates affectthe perception of buildings where occupiers face multiple control systems. Themanagement of the lighting in classroom spaces including the type and location ofblinds, lack of regular window cleaning in some buildings and difficulty inminimising light on projection screens in upgraded classrooms were cited as areasfor improvement. Wider implications for lighting control and managementhighlighted by this study include most notably that a lack of end users consultationhas serious consequences on their perception of lighting upgrades and theirwillingness to employ ‘workarounds.’

1. Introduction

In the first six years of Reading University’scarbon management programme whichstarted in 2009, lighting retrofit projectsmade up 12% of the total carbon energyefficiency projects and the nine lightingupgrades cost a total of £810,532 andachieved savings of £164,951 per annum and800 tCO2e. Lighting incurs a significantfinancial and carbon cost: although engineer-ing standards for lighting specifications andcodes of practice detail optimum and quality

lighting solutions1 there is little attention paidto how these lighting systems perform inpractice.2 While the Chartered Institution ofBuilding Services Engineers (CIBSE) guid-ance suggests training should be given in theuse of lighting controls, the theoretical andpractical impact of training 4000 staff andinvited public speakers indicates that intuitivelighting controls are essential in all universityspaces and could negate the need for trainingif designed properly. Although this issue ismost salient for higher education institutionsdealing with a large annual turnover of staffand students, it clearly also arises for anylarge organisation, in particular ones in thepublic sector where large numbers of visitorsare interacting with lighting and, potentially,lighting controls. The use of the university’s

Address for correspondence: KL van Someren, School of theBuilt Environment, University of Reading, TSBE Centre,JJ Thomson, PO Box 220, Reading RG6 6AF, UK.E-mail: k.vansomeren@reading.ac.uk

Lighting Res. Technol. 2017; 0: 1–16

� The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2017 10.1177/1477153517709063

buildings and subsequently their lighting varygreatly over time and – because of age,maintenance and management – may differsubstantially from what was anticipated at thepoint of initial design. Despite UK guidanceon lighting for education being available, andthis includes explicit design options for white-board and projection screens,1 without pro-ject managers adopting these guides there aremany opportunities for poor lightingupgrades. In 2015 it was reported that theUK public sector faced the risk of being‘locked-in’ to old technologies,3 although UKuniversities are seen as being private sectorthey still have the ability to operate as if theyare public sector. Even over shorter timeperiods the intentions of lighting designersmight not be realized in the day-to-dayexperience of building users. One of themost obvious ways in which building usersinteract with lighting is the use of a controlswitch, researchers have found significanteffects in lighting use, daily patterns andenergy consumption in public sector buildingsby varying the design of the light switch,4 butlighting control itself is still only part of thelighting experience. User experiences of light-ing control technologies are investigated inthis paper.

Light switching behaviour has been shownto alter following the introduction of lightingcontrol technologies, particularly automa-tion, and can in some circumstances lead togreater, not less, electricity consumption ifindividuals come to rely upon the automatedsystems to turn off lights (which they will doafter a delay) rather than turning them offmanually more promptly.5,6 A key outcomeof researchers investigating LED versus fluor-escent T5 lighting in classrooms was that,crucially, LED lighting is not synonymouswith energy savings, the LED lighting in thisstudy actually incurred up to an additional30% of energy use through parasitic losses.7

In offices, best practice guidance and carefuldesign can afford both control to individuals

and an indirect lighting system to balance thenon-visual lighting needs of occupant’s well-being and still achieve energy savings of upto 70%.8 Previous qualitative survey-basedresearch has investigated office workers use oflighting controls and results indicated that,unsurprisingly, people had a preference fordaylight but also, and more worryingly, 72%of this study’s respondents did not know howto find the lighting remote control keysunderneath a sliding cover.9

This study makes use of a qualitativeresearch approach to examine aspects ofuser experience and beliefs not easily capturedby more traditional quantitative methods.Semi-structured interviews allow researchersto gain insight into the diverse range of viewsand experiences of individuals including theirrationales behind decision making, habits andbehaviours.10 The focus of this research ishow occupants perceive their lit environmentsin the campus spaces they frequent and howthey interact with lighting controls. Theseoccupants thus constitute ‘end users’ of thebuilding space and the lit environment pro-vided for them.

2. Method

2.1. Recruitment

Participants were directly recruited via staffemail group lists. Nine academic teachingstaff participated. Seven of the nine staff wereresearchers in the built environment. Duringrecruitment and in the briefing sheet providedparticipants were informed that the purposeof the study was to explore their lightingpreferences in their working environments.Academic teaching and research staff wereselected as they represent a less transientpopulation than undergraduate or postgradu-ate students and are more likely to haveexperience manipulating the light and lightingconditions in a variety of university spaces.A small sample was appropriate because thisresearch aimed to collect a rich description of

2 van Someren et al.

detailed information about each individual’sexperiences and views. Data collection isdeemed sufficient when theoretical saturationis achieved at a point where no new themesemerge from interviews.

2.2. Data collection

2.2.1. InterviewsParticipants were interviewed at a conveni-

ent time and date in their own offices or alocation convenient to them. Being able toconduct the interview in the individual’soffices allowed the occupants to directlyshow the interviewer their preferences.Participants had typically occupied officeswithin the same buildings for periods between3 and 26 years. In two interviews the record-ing was split into two separate periods, onebecause the participant started to talk againabout light and lighting after the interviewfinished, this discussion was paused andrecording resumed; the other because theparticipant wanted to relocate to their labora-tory to demonstrate their difficulty with usingthe retractable light switches that were linkedto the automated lighting sensors.

A semi-structured interview procedure wasformulated from a previous pilot study. Thequestions were decided upon as specificallyfocusing on lighting, lighting behaviour andthe use of campus spaces. The topic guidecomprised eight main areas:(1) Automationin corridor areas; (2) Corridor dimming,sensitivity and timing; (3) Orientation ofbuilding; (4) Office daylight, blinds and arti-ficial lighting; (5) Office lighting habits andpatterns of behaviour; (6) Seasons/weather;(7) Classroom lighting controls – examples ofexcellent and poor designs; (8) Views andblind use. The questions were not limited inscope and the researcher actively sought tokeep the question open ended to encourageopinions and further examples to beexpressed.

Lighting automation (topics 1 and 2) in thecorridor areas was chosen as this was found

to be a topic generated by an earlier pilotstudy conducted with four postgraduatestudents and two staff members in initialsemi-structured interviews. The orientation ofthe building (topic 3) is a factor linked todaylight and artificial lighting design.Questions were also posed about the individ-ual’s working environment (topic 4), theiroffice, whether that is open or single occu-pancy and how much control they have otherthe lighting in this space. As seven out of nineparticipants were recruited from the School ofthe Built Environment, they were mostlyfamiliar with the 2013 lighting upgrades incorridor and classroom areas as part of theuniversity’s Carbon Management Plan. Twoparticipants were deliberately sought fromother independent Departments to triangulatethe collected data and provide insights from awider range of participants. Their usualpatterns of behaviour and habit (topic 5)were also explored in both their office envir-onment and familiar classrooms. Seasonality(topic 6) was included as this impacted theiruse of blinds and artificial light – especiallywhen teaching – and varied according to thedaylight availability. Topic 7 related to theirclassroom spaces and was investigated byasking participants if they could recall specificexamples of good lighting controls that wereeasy to use and understand, and also thosethat suffered from poor design and weredifficult to use in practice. Finally, partici-pants were asked about their perception oftheir office and classroom views (topic 8) andhow this related to their blind use.

The interviews were recorded using aSony ICD-PX312 audio recorder. The audiofiles in .mp3 format were sent via a filesharing site to an external agency for tran-scription. The written transcriptionwas received by the researchers and thenchecked thoroughly, three times in total,for errors whilst the researcher listened tothe audio file. Notes were also made duringthe interview.

Users experiences of lighting controls 3

2.2.2. Field informationThe 30 teaching and learning buildings on

this university’s main campus amount to122,000 m2 of the gross internal area floorspace. Reporting the individual offices, hun-dreds of centrally bookable classrooms andtheir respective corridor floor plans, lightinglevels and light sources was outside of thescope of this study. The focus of this studywas instead on the participant’s responses totheir lit environment in all of those spaces.All of the spaces mentioned were lit withfluorescent lighting, re-commissioning infre-quently took place in practice as specialistexternal commissioning engineers charged upto £1000 per day. The quality of good

lighting has been discussed alongside thevery real goals of time and budget con-straints, whilst acknowledging that indiffer-ent, adequate and even bad lighting isunfortunately a norm for some.11

2.3. Data analysis

A thematic analysis approach and initialcoding method was used. This assumes theresearcher has no preconceived theories abouthow people use their space or how theychoose to light it. There are no hypothesesgiven as it starts from an open point of viewabout letting the participants speak candidlyabout their position and viewpoint. Theprocess of data analysis followed the flow

Analysis action Analysis description

Transcribe Audio files sent to third party transcription service and returned asMS Word.doc files

Listen & read Listen to the audio files for each participant and read through thetranscript at the same time to check for errors

Iterative Read all of the interview transcripts thoroughly

Make notes Write initial notes and codes - process coding, selecting salient quotes

Iterative Re-read all of the transcripts with initial notes and codes seeing if there are new codes and if there are common themes

Produce themes Develop themes from the codes that are interpretive at a higher levelthan the specific codes -thematic analysis

Focus Utilise focussing strategies

1) Select three themes that summarises the codes

2) Top ten quotes

Iterative Re-read the transcripts again to ensure the themes are emerging from the data

Write results Write up results and tailor focussing strategies to suit data analysis and interpretation

Figure 1 Process of conducting thematic analysis of this study

4 van Someren et al.

chart detailed in Figure 1. The initial analysiswas conducted using process coding (alsoknown as ‘action coding’),12 to identify themain categories found when summarisingparticipant responses.

Thematic analysis uses initial codes whichare then collated and developed into themesfrom the data. Outputs were refined using twofocusing strategies,12 which sought three mainthemes and a top 10 list of extracted quotesthat were particularly relevant. The resultswere reviewed through iterative stages toidentify a total of four themes that emergedfrom the data as the strategy was a startingpoint to further develop the interpretations asthe analysis progressed.

2.3.1. Rigour, validity and limitationsThe British Medical Journal’s checklist for

qualitative research13 was followed. A keycharacteristic of qualitative research is thedesire to seek a personal opinion and judge-ment from the participant. Using topic guidequestions and open-ended questions inher-ently alters the perspective and answers of theparticipants. If the researcher wanted toremain outside of the research they wouldchoose surveys and quantitative statisticalmethods that seek to be unbiased. The inter-viewer’s background in physics, surveyingand specialism in lighting controls meantthat focus was on how people used thecontrols in campus buildings and whetherthese were functioning as intended. In elicit-ing responses from participants the inter-viewer tried to refrain from using anybuilding jargon and instead used the partici-pant’s language to further conversations. Theparticipants chosen were not unbiased in theirprior knowledge and ability to describe thebuilt environment as many were from theSchool of the Built Environment. However,the two participants that were not ‘experts’ inthis field provided similar insightful andcomprehensive accounts of their use of lightand lighting in their spaces.

Negative findings and divergent cases arealso reported here, for example when aparticipant’s contribution did not fit thegeneral conclusions arrived at once analysiswas completed. A comprehensive paper trailof interview notes, initial codes, themes,interpretations and findings was developedthroughout the analysis. Validation wasachieved through means of an in-house sem-inar where intermediate analysis was pre-sented to the participants and they wereinvited to give private feedback to theresearchers.

3. Results

Participants were encouraged to discuss spe-cific examples, such as buildings and class-rooms. Photographs of some of these aregiven below to illustrate participants’ obser-vations. Four major themes naturallyemerged from the data on light and lighting:control and choice, connection with the out-doors, concentration and comfort.

3.1. Control and choice

One of the most commonly asserted themeswas having control over the light and lighting.Previous work has suggested blind use islinked to direct sunlight and solar gainprevention.14 This study raised the issue ofwindow blind use with academic staff whooccupied offices. These interviews demon-strated that blind use was not only affectedby these two elements but also managementpractices in different buildings across campus.For example, the different university build-ings are subject to different window cleaningfrequencies, which are managed by individualSchools and their respective budget con-straints, rather than centrally.

Interviewer: ‘And your blinds, they’re halfopen at a bit of an angle now, do you alterthem between the seasons at all or?’

Users experiences of lighting controls 5

Participant 9: ‘Not really, sometimes inthe summer I just open them completelyso I can gaze at the blue sky but they’reonly there because the windows are fairlyugly so they’re edge on to take your eyeaway from the blind aluminium finish ofthese ugly windows. It’s pockmarked,when the glass is dirty the universitydoesn’t pay for window cleaning, thewindows are dirty, the aluminium isstained and past its best so I want to seethe view but if I’m focusing on the windowframe the vertical blinds pull my eyes tothe blinds rather than the window frame.It’s strange isn’t it really but they add tothe feeling of, I suppose it’s a feeling ofbeing in control of the environment,overriding the decisions that were takenby some faceless building services engin-eer in Estates and Facilities who’s got noidea what these things feel like to workin.’ [Expert in the built environment,academic]

One of the ways that office users couldinfluence their environments directly wastheir use of small power lighting in theiroffices. All but one participant explainedthat they would use small power direct andindirect lighting in preference to the ceilinglighting installed (fluorescent T12 lighting inthe Built Environment offices). Piecemealinstallation of retrofit lighting to the corri-dors and classrooms did not include upgrad-ing the individual offices or areas such ascoffee spaces, kitchens, print rooms andsome toilets and in some instances, 1980/1990’s office ceiling lighting produced flickerand noise which interviewees felt affectedtheir ability to work comfortably. Lightingprofessionals should be wary of piecemealupgrades when faced with a client that isfinancially constrained – as most publicsector clients are likely to be post-2008 –and how this will affect both the postoccupancy evaluation of this space and enduser’s perceptions.

The use of direct control over lighting hasbeen suggested to increase office worker’ssatisfaction with their physical environment.15

The small indirect uplighters and direct taskreading lamps allowed them to create differ-ent moods and areas for carrying out differenttasks.

Participant 2: ‘Yes, so this Anglepoiselamp is very much here at the work stationso it’s very much a reading lamp. The onein the corner is purely an ambient lightingthing to make it look pretty. The otherone on the desk is that, because they’re allcompact fluorescent bulbs and they’requite low wattage CFLs they don’t giveout masses of light, so without that oneon, then you’re coming to this kind of greyarea between a nice ambient environmentand sitting in the dark, and so that one onthe table is very important in the sensethat when I have students coming in that Isupervise, the idea is that that table isnormally empty and the only thing on it isthe lamp and it’s purely to get themfeeling relaxed so that we can have aconversation. I do feel that having thatnice mellow lighting helps to put them in acalmer frame of mind, that’s the idea, andthat’s why I’ve got the nice picturesaround there as well.’ [Expert in thebuilt environment, academic]

The office occupants perceived that they wereable to take control of their environments bychoosing to bring in different lamps tocounteract their discomfort with the installedceiling lighting as detailed by participants 2and 9 above. Control and choice are two keyelements in dual processing theory, system 1involves automatic unconscious elements,whereas system 2 the conscious mind isinvolved in control and choice.16,17 Oneparticipant (an academic expert in the builtenvironment) reported that he was unaffectedby the installed artificial lighting and chosenot to bring in personal lighting, but this view

6 van Someren et al.

was not shared by the other interviewees.Designers could include options for individ-ual desk lamps to suit the visual and controlneeds of the end users.

Interviewees also explained their difficultieswith using the light switches when controllinglighting for teaching/lecturing in classrooms.They described their habit of selecting theappropriate artificial light levels by trial anderror at the beginning of the lecture period.The theory of planned behaviour, which isbased in rational choice theory is widelyestablished, yet there is still a gap betweenautomatic unconscious habitual patterns ofbehaviour and the end result.18,19 The lack ofconsistency and continuity with the lightswitch interface across different buildingsand teaching spaces was repeatedly raised.Despite explicitly mentioning classroomsrecently upgraded with dimmable T5 fluores-cent classroom lighting, only one intervieweereported being able to use these in practice asthey were fitted with retractable switches, asituation discovered by the intervieweethrough trial and error.

Participant 8: ‘If they were dimmableI probably didn’t know. So I wouldprobably just use as on or off. Now, likeif there is a slider that goes up and down,that’s pretty obvious that I can controlthat, but no, if the switch looks just on oroff I would probably just use it like on oroff.’Participant 5: ‘I just know how to usethem through trial and error. One of myparticular complaints about these things isin some parts of the university you have anon off switch which is simply there andwhat you don’t realise about that on offswitch is if you hold the on switch, itbrings the lights up and if you press thelight switch off it brings the lights down.Great once you discover it but it is entirelybyInterviewer: Accident?

Participant 5: Accident that you find thatout, and that’s just irritating apart fromanything else.’ [Non-expert in the BuiltEnvironment]

The Chemistry building’s lecture theatreswere cited by a few participants as beingable to use easily and quickly, as shown inFigure 2. This light switch is not dissimilar toothers used, which were cited as being diffi-cult. The key difference is the labelling, withbutton 1. for lecture use, this fixed label issalient, placed directly above the switch andeasily mapped to the buttons allowing easyuse by the end user. The light switch settings1–4 are illuminated when pressed to allowfeedback to the user about which setting iscurrently being operated.

Finally, the participants mentioned thattheir use of multiple teaching tools: video,presentation, exams, group and individualexercises necessitated different lighting condi-tions and control over these different teachingstyles was often made difficult by the designof the lighting controls.

Participant 5: ‘It’s really quite important,especially as I tend to use video clips andother tools in my lectures that I can

Figure 2 Chemistry lecture theatre light switch

Users experiences of lighting controls 7

actually vary the lighting in the room. Thedifficulty being is if you want to show aclip you need the lighting to be right onthe screen, there’s no point in showingpeople a clip if the, it’s, the screen ispossibly washed out by an unnecessarylight.’ [Non-expert in the built environ-ment, academic]

Although best practice guidance states thatclassroom and educational lighting designshould be flexible to enable the present andfuture teaching and learning styles,1 it appearsthat in practice at this university, this fre-quently does not happen.

3.2. Connection with the outdoors

Unsurprisingly, the participants had apreference for daylight in their offices andclassrooms. Their enthusiasm for occupying aspace that had access to daylight was not onlyimportant for themselves but also their stu-dents. Previous research has shown that forchildren in classrooms the effect of daylightimpacts non-visual effects such as healthoutcomes and circadian response,20 and it isreasonable to assume that the same may betrue for adult learners and teachers. Therewas a willingness to consider teaching outsideas a viable option for lesson plans. Thelighting in the classroom spaces and student’sability to see the screen, make notes and seethe lecturer was perceived as important toparticipants. Some of the classrooms specif-ically referenced are located in 1960’s and1970’s style buildings with few or no win-dows, or conversely large south facing win-dows with black blackout blinds (Figure 3).These spaces were depicted in some of theiropinions as oppressive environments for bothlecturer and student, particularly when teach-ing for a full week, 8 hours a day.

Participant 1: ‘So I mean it’s horrible forlots of reasons, one of them being there’sno sense of connection with the outdoors.Now if your lectures stimulating enough

and interesting enough, perhaps it’s some-thing that you can forget about butthey’re in there all day and also youmight be teaching them all day as well.And I just think from that perspective it’snice to see, have a connection with theoutdoors, to see how the day is progress-ing you know. Not going in at nine and itsort of quite dim outside and then leavingat five and its dark.’ [Expert in the builtenvironment, academic]

A few members of staff interviewed teachoutdoors, with site visits, and one participantpreferred this to indoor teaching spaces forstudent learning and engagement.

Participant 6: ‘One of the classroomsI was describing to you in systems engin-eering, that’s where I would have those sixhours with the students, and it’s horren-dous. They’re falling asleep within thefirst 20 minutes. I could be doing break-dancing on the stage, they’d still fallasleep because of the environment thatthey’re placed in. But outside they’reabsolutely on it, engaged, interested etc,so they’re wide awake.’ [Expert in thebuilt environment, academic]

Empathy was expressed for the students andhow they were affected by the classroomenvironment. Some lecturers suggested that

Figure 3 Classroom used for lunchtime researchseminars in the School of the Built Environment

8 van Someren et al.

this affected their learning outcomes but nomeasure of this was offered. Participants weredirectly asked about their perceived import-ance of a view in both their office andclassroom environments. Undergraduate stu-dent learning experience and student results atthe end of term have been shown to bepositively influenced by access to outdoorviews, although perceived stress or directedattention may be mediating the positiveeffects of outdoor views found in this study.21

Participant 3: ‘It’s not only trees andbirds and flowers and nice things it’s, eventhe road, there’s a road just out there. Ithink part of the job of being an academicis daydreaming, you’ve got to think ofthings, you’ve got to imagine things,you’ve got to try and come up with ideasand resolve issues in your mind and I thinka good way of doing that is to look atthings outside.’ [Expert in the builtenvironment, academic]

In some individuals’ opinions, not only wasan office view important for their problemsolving, thinking, conceptualising and con-templation, but they also wanted to afford thesame privilege to their students. Mostexpressed the belief that perhaps sometimestheir students also needed to take a 5-minutebreak and stare out of the window to take abrief mental rest. The idea that natureprovides a restorative opportunity when youare fatigued has been explored by researcherslooking at views and directing undergraduateattention in dormitory halls of residence, theyfound that students reported a perceivedincrease in their own attentional functioningwhen viewing nature; however, further andlongitudinal studies are needed to supportthese effects.22 The individual who declaredthey were unaffected by the lighting in theiroffice also explained that the view was notimportant to them and this individual did notthink it affected the performance of theirstudents in a classroom environment.

3.3. Concentration

Some individuals explained how theirperceived concentration was affected by thedaylight and artificial lighting in their offices.Allowing office occupants to have this flexi-bility of control over their task lighting offersdifferent opportunities for concentration andproductive work outputs.

Participant 4: ‘I’ve got a desk lamp there,so if I need to read something on, I wouldstill rather read it on paper than on thescreen. Now, I’ve got quite a big screen.So, if I’m really doing some seriousmarking of something I will sit underthat, and I’ve got an old fashioned bulb.’[Non-expert in the built environment,academic]Interviewer: ‘And you would choose thatover the preinstalled?’Participant 4: ‘Yeah, I like a really brightlight on the paper. And it’s down there. I,there’s the light, here’s the paper.’

Although this individual had a preference forperforming tasks under a desk lamp, this doesnot necessarily influence how effectively theperson performs the task in practice. Theoffice occupants who have installed ceilinglighting that is over 20 years old with poorcolour temperature and unsatisfactorily main-tained (with references to dead flies beingcited, and bulbs blown) were specific inpointing out that they perceived their ceilinglighting was detrimental to their productivityand increased their sense of tension, anxietyand stress. In conjunction with poorluminaires, lighting controls can also be ameans of distraction and result in a difficultywhen lecturers try to use different teachingmethods; examples are photographed inFigure 4.

Participant 2: ‘but then I want to show avideo and so I want to reduce down thelight even more and so I start fiddling, I’vegot no idea which buttons to press andthen you end up all of the lights go up in

Users experiences of lighting controls 9

the classroom and then they all go off andit’s a nice distraction and people find itfunny, but realistically this digital lightswitch thing is a nonsense, because eventhough I’ve been here two and a half yearsI’ve never actually been shown how to usethese switches properly’ [Expert in thebuilt environment, academic]

As previously stated, the effects of bothcontrol and a connection with the outdoorswere explored and a few of the participantsconsidered that this might influence theirstudent’s ability to concentrate. The multi-plying effect of being in a space that lacksfresh air and daylight and an inability tocontrol the lighting or window blinds leads tothis participant’s exasperation with teachingin some of the spaces.

Participant 9: ‘So I imagine the student’sperformance would also suffer. They cansee it on their faces, they’re sat there andthey’re just desperately trying to stayawake and struggling to, with the envir-onment, it’s awful, no fresh air, no freshlight, no daylight, not even, there’s no aircon I don’t think. If there is it doesn’twork. But they’re stuffy and unbelievablyuncomfortable rooms.’ [Expert in thebuilt environment, academic]

The type and control of the window blindsalso affects students. Blackout blinds in someclassrooms were reported to contribute tofeelings of claustrophobia and constraintpreventing a view and connection with theoutside space in some classrooms. Designersshould note that using blackout blinds hasmultiple unintended consequences, the darksurface is hot and it totally inhibits views ofoutside though providing a means of control-ling solar glare it can severely impact percep-tions and wellbeing.

Participant 9: ‘I know the room from thelunch time seminars [classroom within theSchool of the Built Environment, with 3metre tall south facing single glazedwindows]. It’s a horrible room . . . you’vethen got people wanting to close the blindsto make it even more claustrophobic anduncomfortable. Now, if the classroom ismoving, like on water you’d have every-thing to be uncomfortable, wouldn’t you?You’d have, you’d be nauseous. And Iknow, we’ve sat in there for lunch timeseminars, and it’s been, people havewanted all the lights off, and otherpeople haven’t. I don’t know. It’s quitehigh ceilings there as well actually, whichprobably has some kind of impact, Isuppose. But you don’t have fixed desks

Figure 4 Two specific examples of poor classroom light switches that were explicitly mentioned in relation toparticipant’s difficulty using the controls

10 van Someren et al.

either. Those desks can all be moved inthat room, so the room can be configureddifferently, but you go into some of theclassrooms or some of the lecture theatresand all the seating is fixed, so you’ve gotto work with that order unless you’regoing to do something serious and moveeverything. But that as a classroom and asa presenting room, it’s too long, too thin,terrible heating, poor windows, and yeah,black out blinds, it’s not nice.’ [Expert inthe built environment, academic]

3.4. Comfort

Specifically, considering how the officeoccupants personalised their office space thesubject of cosiness was frequently cited.Participants wanted to create a sense ofcomfort and consequently used their lighting,artwork, plants and books to reflect a room,which encourages a calm state of mind andambience.

Participant 8: ‘Yeah, don’t everybody,well, most people like to personalise theiroffice, but I’m very sensitive to creating acosy environment, and lighting is a bigpart of it. I’m very particular aboutlighting that stimulates me to sit andwork or makes me want to leave as soonas possible.’ [Expert in the built environ-ment, academic]

The interviewees explained how they some-times worked late hours and wanted an office,which would foster the productivity theysought. The combination of interior decor,colour and lighting was important to theirfeelings of ownership and direct control overtheir environment, which designers couldenable and encourage. Previous research hasfound this creativity and personalisation ofacademic offices plays an important role in anacademic’s sense of self and considers futuredesign requirements that may lack thisability to personalise one’s office could bedetrimental.23

Participant 7: ‘I think the flowers has[sic] been the key to personalise myoffice, and that poster. The books willdefinitely absorb a lot of light, so that’snot where I want to sit. I want to sit awayfrom the books because that side willalways absorb the lighting.’ [Expert inthe built environment, academic]

4. Discussion

Two elements connect the four themes above:design and management, but discussion ofthese must be preceded by an acknowledge-ment of pre-existing constraints to action.

4.1. Constraints

This study has discussed the opinions of asmall number of academics in this UKUniversity, other user groups clearly need tobe part of the wider discussion about the fourthemes highlighted and it would be interestingto study the views of the more vulnerableusers who have additional access and supportrequirements. The views of the originaldesigners, administrative staff who acted asbuilding managers, and maintenance teamalthough valid would not have provided theinsights of the end users, an important factorfor designers to remember and apply inpractice. There are limitations to implement-ing lighting changes across an environment(such as the one documented), which com-prises a large estate spread over threecampuses in the UK and contains listedbuildings alongside many newer educationalbuildings. Notably, few of the lighting retrofitupgrade buildings were amongst those citedas poor in their control systems, but therewere clear discrepancies between buildingusers’ ability to use the controls and the‘design intent.’

The financial implications of retrofittingclassroom spaces to standardise the controlsystems has not been investigated. It is a

Users experiences of lighting controls 11

current requirement that the university’senergy efficiency retrofits must achievebetween a 5 - and 8-year payback period tobe considered financially acceptable and thisform of financial constraint is common.Replacing lighting control interfaces, such asswitch plates, on an estate wide basis isunlikely to achieve this payback period asthe savings would prove difficult to quantifyor empirically measure in practice. The lackof consistency in replacing and upgradingonly parts of a lighting system within a largebuilding highlights the financial pressuresconstraining management decisions but none-theless it has observable consequences.

4.2. Design

The design of the control interfaces forlight switches is one of the most consistentoutputs of this qualitative research withparticipants reporting their many trial-and-error patterns of behaviour in classrooms andlack of ease controlling the light on thescreen. It is frequently left to the contractorto decide upon the location, style and com-plexity of the light switches as reported byParticipant 9. As reported the light switches inclassrooms regularly confuse and delay thebuilding users from achieving their desiredlight settings.

Participant 9: Nobody seems to havethought about lighting at all, they justthrow these lights in and put someswitches in without really thinking. It’sthe same mentality that leads us to haveprojector screens in front of whiteboards.So again you can’t use both, it’s reallyweird that people are installing things intoteaching spaces where the folks who areinstalling them have never spoken toanybody that uses them or imagined howthey might be used, it’s terrible. Thelighting is appalling. [Expert in the BuiltEnvironment]

The majority of the light switches studiedwould fail to meet basic visual impairmentand accessibility requirements for disabledstaff and students if the accessible designcriteria for interiors24 were applied to occu-pant’s interaction with controls. For example,the light switches shown in Figure 4 have littleto no contrast between the scene numbers andbackground, and the switches are sometimesthe same colour as the back plate and lack offeedback with the luminaires leads to manytrial-and-error events.

Together with many different control set-tings that differ between classroom and alsobuilding, the user faces the difficulty oflearning each new system shown in Figure 4.Hence, it is not surprising that many asked ifthey could be standardised and consistentthroughout not only the classrooms andbuildings but amongst the different campusesacross this university’s estate. It is well-established that consistency is a key compo-nent of learnability of many systems.25 A keyimplication for the wider lighting profession isto draw upon the cognitive mechanisms atwork when artificial lighting is used ordaylight is controlled through blinds, theseinvolve explicitly acknowledging the differ-ences between intention, execution and habit-ual behaviour.26

Interviewer: Do you think you’d changeanything about these controls if you had achance? What would you want to changeabout the lighting?Participant 5: I’d standardise it, I’d stand-ardise it across the university so in one goeverything works in the same way in all therooms, I think that’s one aspect of it. And Ithink clear instructions and yeah, as muchfeedback built into the device and as muchintuitiveness in the design, so you don’thave to think too much about it and that itmakes sense. So I think I would imaginethat would take quite a lot of trialling,however I think maybe there are someparts of the university as the one that we’ve

12 van Someren et al.

already talked about, in Building 22, there’salready some good practice there thatmaybe even could just be rolled out.[Non-expert in the Built Environment]

The interviewees were also directly askedabout their perception of automation incorridor areas and their response to thistype of system. Interviewees were largely infavour of such control strategies; however, afew of the academics in the School of the BuiltEnvironment expressed their dismay thatretrofit upgrade of lighting in 2013 excludedpersonal spaces (offices, kitchen area, coffeearea and the toilets) which were left with the1980’s luminaires.

Lack of inclusive thinking and a thoroughdesign process, has led to frustration andadaptive behaviours amongst the inter-viewees, who comment upon how this hasaffected their teaching and student learning,the most notable of which was one individ-ual’s preference for teaching outside as theybelieve this assists with their student’s con-centration. This belief cannot be assessedgiven the absence of direct evidence but itdoes provide some interesting elements to thediscussion of including the academic teachingstaff within the design process, which is notwithout precedent and there is evidence that –within higher education – building users cansubstantially influence the design with posi-tive effects.27

4.3. Management

CIBSE best practice guidance emphasisesthat lighting controls require qualified com-missioning engineers and adequate trainingshould be provided to building users tooperate these controls.1 Conversely, if priordesign and lighting knowledge of occupancypatterns and building orientation was used bypre-commissioning the controls and sensorsthis could potentially reduce the installationtime. Intuitive well designed lighting controlsnegates the need for training,28 which may beimpractical to provide, particularly in a

transient environment where there are mul-tiple system users and lighting controls aresimple in function even if the few functionsintended are not adequately conveyed by theirappearance. Norman28 explains the use ofsignifiers, constraints, mappings and a con-ceptual model in the ‘Gulf of Execution’where a user tries to understand how it worksand what it does; and the use of feedback anda conceptual model in the ‘Gulf ofEvaluation’ where a user assesses what cur-rent state the system is in and if their actionsachieved the intended goal.

Utilising human centred design concepts,Figure 5 illustrates the gulf between thedesigner and user’s conceptual system modelsof how a retractable light switch functions inpractice.

The management practice of installingretrofit lighting upgrades only in specificparts of the building (e.g. corridors) wherethe payback was under a 5-year period, alsoresulted in an experience of inconsistency.Failing to ensure blind controls were func-tioning and of suitable style, colour andquality, and a lack of a consistent windowcleaning strategy impacted upon the buildingusers control and comfort in both offices andupgraded classrooms. Management decisionsresulting in an inconsistent end-user experi-ence have unintended consequences for occu-pant behaviour. Broken blind controls anddirty windows can lead to a sense of occupy-ing a neglected and poorly managed building.The lack of maintenance of office light fittingsand blinds frequently led to occupants adapt-ing their behaviour and personalising theiroffices to maintain what they perceived to bea suitable level of comfort. Adaptive behav-iour in the built environment in relation toblinds and lighting controls includes coveringilluminance sensors with tape in automated litenvironments to override the controlsystems.29

These results suggest that the opinion ofacademic staff is that the student learning

Users experiences of lighting controls 13

experience is impacted upon by the light andlighting in university classrooms. Access to aview and daylight for student comfort andconcentration was deemed valuable by mostof the participants. Designers need to con-sider the multiple users of the space and theflexibility that these spaces afford for differ-ent scenarios by different users, be it students,academics, guest speakers, cleaners or admin-istrative staff.

The control over classroom lighting wasarticulated by six of the participants whodescribed trial-and-error events at the begin-ning of every lecture slot to set the lightingto their satisfaction. The fluorescent lampsinstalled in the university’s classrooms takea minimum of 2minutes to reach an almostconstant light level, if like Figure 4 there aremany possible permutations (scene settingsand on or off), this would require arrivingearly pre-lecture time to find the appropri-ate setting. The blinds in classrooms alsoprevent a connection with the outdoor spaceand despite enjoying daylight, the use ofblackout blinds creates claustrophobic

feelings and spaces that are deprived ofsensory experiences. The influential work ofLeaman and Bordass30 still continues toeducate designers by grounding itself insystems being simple, intelligible, affordingfeedback and crucially designers respectingpeople’s comments when evaluating buildingperformance.

5. Conclusions

This paper aimed to elucidate how occupantsperceive their lit environments in universitybuildings and how they interacted with light-ing controls using a qualitative researchapproach. A strength of this paper is thecollection of rich descriptions from buildingoccupants – the end users. Revealing thedifficulties in a tightly constrained financialenvironment and how this impacted thefeelings of neglect, frustration and adaptivebehaviours it reveals a voice that is seldomgiven exposure in end user’s own words.A weakness was the use of a case study

(a)

(b)

Designers system model

Users system model

Correct interaction

Interaction

For switching lights on

For switching lights on Dimming function is not used For switching lights off

Extra InteractionsIf dimming is discovered There is no feedback on ascale of how dim or bright thelights are

Repetitive trial and errorswitching leads to ballast signalconfusion

The immediate feedbackbetween the retractable switchand rate at which the lights aredimming/brightening is inadequately slow with ballastdelays

Always returning to a neutral positon allows no immediate feedback to theuser upon exit which one of a bank ofretractable switches remains ‘on’

There is no sound signifier orfirm ‘click’ linked to switchingactions

There is nothing to suggest theretractable switch is able to dimlights - a total lack ofdiscoverabilityBecause the switch ‘appears’

the same people interact with itusing their prior knowledge andexperience based on what itsignifies

Switch appears almost identicalto traditional rocker switchshown left

For increasing brightness For switching lights off

Incorrect interactionPressing up or down multiple times inquick successionLights will not brighten or dim and signalsto ballast will be conflicting

1. Enables contractor to wire dimmable lights2. Compatible with absence detection sensors

Press and hold up portion of switchfor dimming lightsPress and hold up portion of switch

Momentarily press down (againswitch returns to neutral position)

•

•

•

••

••

•

•

The action required to press andhold is a new one and notintuitive, again it is notimmediately discoverable

•

•

•

• •

•

Momentarily press up(retractable switch returns toneutral original position incentre)

Figure 5 Two conceptual models for a retractable light switch

14 van Someren et al.

which highlights bespoke campus specificmanagement and design issues which mightnot be transferable to other campuses.Nonetheless, conducting interviews withstaff rather than designers or project man-agers allowed for opinions and experiences tobe expressed openly especially as the studystarted from an exploratory, inductivereasoning position with no prior assump-tions. The lighting community could takeaway a number of insights based uponhuman centred design and using smallsample interviews as a method of postoccupancy evaluation. Without the enduser’s voice in the conversation of lightingdesign, gulfs between the designer’s concep-tual model of lighting and the users’ (Figure6.15) are not only unbridged but unacknow-ledged. The user sample employed hereincorporates a wide range of experiencesbecause many end users were experts in thebuilt environment. It is plausible that thebuilt environment experts perceived andovertly judged the poor management anddesign with a more critical eye than stafffrom other schools; however, there is nodirect evidence for this, and we note that thelighting environment experienced by theseusers is common to all. Arguably, experts inthe built environment are the most inform-ative group to approach because their expert-ise enables them to articulate concernscommon across multiple users. The lightingprofession should consider all the vulnerabil-ities and difficulties end users perceive andexperience when interacting with lightingcontrols rather than ignoring them.Explicitly exploring the switch plates, controland management strategies at the very startof the design process with end users beingincluded in the discussion would enablea solution with meticulous attention todetail. This study highlights the gap betweenthe designer’s intent and actual use of light-ing and occupancy, which will be furtherexplored in a quantitative study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts ofinterest with respect to the research, author-ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the followingfinancial support for the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article: This projectwas supported by the Energy Team, Estates &Facilities, University of Reading, UK; andThe Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council, Grant EP/G037787/1.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dan Fernbank, EnergyManager at the University of Reading forfunding and support.

References

1 Chartered Institution of Building ServicesEngineers. SLL Lighting Guide 5: Lighting forEducation. London: CIBSE, 2011.

2 ChiognaM,AlbaticiR,FrattariA.Electriclightingattheworkplaceinoffices:Efficiencyimprovementmarginsofautomationsystems.LightingResearchandTechnology2013;45:550–567.

3 General Electric Lighting, The Carbon Trust.UK Public Sector Risks Locking-In OutdatedTechnology - research by GE Lighting andCarbon Trust. Retrieved 5 April 2017, fromhttp://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/emea/news-and-media/press-room/press-releases/2015/UK-public-sector-risks-locking-in-out-dated-technology.jsp

4 Maleetipwan-Mattsson P, Laike T, JohanssonM. Factors affecting optimal lighting use inshared hospital environments: A case-study.Building and Environment 2016; 96: 260–269.

5 Pigg S, Eilers M, Reed J. Behavioral aspects oflighting and occupancy sensors in private offices:A case study of a university office building:

Users experiences of lighting controls 15

Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer Studyon Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 1996: pp.161–170.

6 TetlowRM,BeamanCP,ElmualimA,CoulingK.Simplepromptsreduceinadvertentenergycon-sumptionfromlightinginofficebuildings.BuildingandEnvironment2014;81:234–242.

7 Gentile N, Goven T, Laike T. A field study offluorescent and LED classroom lighting.Lighting Research and Technology 2016. DOI:1477153516675911.

8 Veitch J, Newsham G, Boyce P, Jones C.Lighting appraisal, well-being and perform-ance in open-plan offices: A linked mechan-isms approach. Lighting Research andTechnology 2008; 40: 133–151.

9 EscuyerS,FontoynontM.Lightingcontrols:Afieldstudyofofficeworkers’reactions.LightingResearchandTechnology2001;33:77–94.

10 Kelly K. A different type of lighting research –A qualitative methodology. Lighting Researchand Technology 2016. DOI:1477153516659901.

11 Boyce P. Lighting quality for all: Proceedings ofSLL and CIBSE Ireland International LightingConference, Dublin, Ireland; 2013: pp. 1–5.

12 Saldana J. The Coding Manual for QualitativeResearchers. 3rd ed. London: SagePublications, 2016.

13 Mays N, Pope C. Rigour and qualitativeresearch. BMJ 1995; 311: 109–112.

14 Reinhart C, Voss K. Monitoring manualcontrol of electric lighting and blinds.Lighting Research and Technology 2003; 35:243–260.

15 Boyce PR, Veitch JA, Newsham GR, JonesCC, Heerwagen J, Myer M, Hunter CM.Lighting quality and office work: Two fieldsimulation experiments. Lighting Research andTechnology 2006; 38: 191–223.

16 Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow.London: Penguin Group, 2011.

17 Norman DA, Shallice T. Attention to action:Willed and automatic control of behaviour.In Davidson RJ, Schwartz GE, Shaprio D,editors. Consciousness and Self-regulation.New York: Plenum Press, 1986: pp. 1–18.

18 Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 1991; 50: 179–211.

19 Ajzen I, Brown TC, Carvajal F. Explaining thediscrepancy between intentions and actions:The case of hypothetical bias in contingentvaluation. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin 2004; 30: 1108–1121.

20 Kuller R, Lindsten C. Health and behaviorof children in classrooms with and withoutwindows. Journal of Environmental Psychology1992; 12: 305–317.

21 Benfield JA, Rainbolt GN, Bell PA, DonovanGH. Classrooms with nature views: Evidenceof differing student perceptions and behaviors.Environment and Behavior 2015; 47: 140–157.

22 Tennessen CM, Cimprich B. Views to nature:Effects on attention. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 1995; 15: 77–85.

23 Belk RW, Watson JC. Material culture and theextended or unextended self in our universityoffices. Advances in Consumer Research 1998;25: 305–310.

24 BrightK,CookG.TheColour,Light andContrastManual. Chichester: Wiley-Blackell, 2010.

25 Payne SJ, Green TRG. The structure ofcommand languages: An experiment ontask-action grammar. International Journalof Man-Machine Studies 1989; 30: 213–234.

26 Corradi N, Priftis K, Jacucci G, Gamberini L.Oops, I forgot the light on! The cognitivemechanisms supporting the execution ofenergy saving behaviors. Journal of EconomicPsychology 2013; 34: 88–96.

27 Lock H. The Cosmologist Who MakesBeautiful University Buildings Appear. London:The Guardian, 2015. Retrived from http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-net-work/2015/nov/30/the-cosmologist-who-makes-beautiful-university-buildings-appear

28 Norman D. The Design of Everyday Things.New York: Basic Books, 2013.

29 O’Brien W, Gunay HB. The contextual factorscontributing to occupants’ adaptive comfortbehaviors in offices -A review and proposedmodeling framework. Building andEnvironment 2014; 77: 77–88.

30 Leaman A, Bordass B. Assessing buildingperformance in use 4: The Probe occupantsurveys and their implications. BuildingResearch and Information 2001; 29: 129–143.

16 van Someren et al.