Understanding Controls, Behaviors and Satisfaction in the Daylit Perimeter Office: A Daylight Design Case Study

Understanding Controls, Behaviorsand Satisfaction in the Daylit PerimeterOffice: A Daylight Design Case Study

Julia Day, M.A., Washington State University, Judy Theodorson, M.Arch., WashingtonState University, and Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg, M.Arch., University of Idaho

ABSTRACT

Daylight has the potential to positively impact occupants and reduce energy consumptionin buildings if utilized correctly (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002). However, unintendednegative outcomes can arise from unsuccessful daylighting schemes. Common issues,such as glare and heat gain, are important architectural considerations in design ofthe building envelope, but less studied are corresponding interior design considerations(such as furniture layout and access to controls) and associated occupant interactionsand appraisals. The purpose of the current study is to expose some of the key issuesrelated to the occupant use of daylight and daylight control in perimeter offices, todiscuss the contributing design process factors, and to suggest possible improvementsto the design process including an increased role for interior designers. The researchmethodology followed a case study approach and included post-occupancy evaluation(POE) questionnaires, interviews, and observations of a single higher education buildingwith intentionally daylit perimeter offices. We discovered that the building in questionwas passed between three separate design teams throughout the design process, whichmay have contributed to the lack of integration between the architectural daylightdesign and the interior furniture and daylighting control fit-out. More than 50% of totalrespondents (n = 35) reported obstructed blind controls due to poor furniture design andlayout. Of these, nearly 60% of occupants modified their office environment to gainaccess to blind controls. Ultimately, findings of this study demonstrate the importance ofan integrated, multidisciplinary approach to daylighting design, one that considers boththe specific building context and the human response.

IntroductionDaylighting, a fundamental sustainable and passivedesign strategy, can be employed as both the primarymeans of ambient light and as an energy efficiencystrategy within interior environments (Bodart &Herde, 2002; Edwards & Torcellini, 2002; Rucket al., 2000). Daylight has the potential to positivelyimpact occupants if utilized correctly. Benefitsof natural daylight within interior environmentsinclude increased occupant satisfaction, psychologicaland physiological health benefits, and increasedproductivity (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002; Heschong,2002; Leslie, 2001; Ulrich & Zimring, 2004).

The Whole Building Design Guide defines daylight-ing as ‘‘the controlled admission of natural lightinto a space through windows to reduce or eliminate

electric lighting’’ (Ander, 2008). Despite the manybenefits of daylighting, an occupant’s lack of abilityto control or manipulate the daylight within theirenvironment may lead to increased energy usagefrom electric lighting and eliminate positive outcomesrelated to the presence of daylight and views (Escuyer& Fontoynont, 2001; Moore, Carter, & Slater,2003; Veitch & Gifford, 1996). Spaces that areunsuccessfully daylit, whether they lack user controls,allow excessive glare, or contribute to heat gain, canresult in adverse effects upon occupant performanceand overall satisfaction (Edwards & Torcellini,2002).

The purpose of the current study is to explore occu-pant behaviors and satisfaction in relation to theirability, or inability, to manipulate the daylight source

© Copyright 2012, Interior Design Educators Council,Journal of Interior Design 17 Journal of Interior Design 37(1), 17–34

A DAYLIGHT DESIGN CASE STUDY

DAY ET AL.

The purpose of the study is to explore occupant behaviors and satisfaction in relation totheir ability, or inability, to manipulate the daylight source within their office environment.

within their office environment and to analyze thedesign process factors that contributed to these occu-pant behaviors. In particular, this study examines abuilding that intentionally implemented a daylightingscheme and manual window blind controls for occu-pants, but the furniture placement in many of theoffices prevents occupants from accessing the windowblinds. The following hypothesis guided the casestudy development: the inability to control daylightwith window blinds impacts behaviors and satisfac-tion in daylit offices. Four research questions furtherexplore the hypothesis: (1) have occupants manipu-lated spatial elements to gain access to blind controls,and if so, how and why; (2) does orientation impactoccupant behaviors and satisfaction; (3) is there acorrelation between satisfaction and how often occu-pants manipulate their blinds; (4) what design processfactors contributed to these issues? A literature reviewsuggests that little or no information is available thatexamines this particular phenomenon of inaccessibleblind controls, due to furniture placement.

This paper is divided into three primary sections.First, the study is framed within the context of a prac-tice model, Integrated Energy Design (IED) (Brown& Cole, 2006), and a theoretical environmentaland behavior (E–B) model developed by Zeisel,Hyde, & Levkoff (1994). Second, a literature reviewintroduces the primary areas of inquiry. The thirdsection of this paper discusses the methodology, keyfindings from the case study, design implications, andrelates these findings to the field of interior design.

Theoretical FrameworksSuccessful daylighting design ultimately requiresa multidisciplinary approach with ‘‘integrationbetween architecture, interiors, lighting design, facil-ity management, and end-user’’ (Theodorson, 2009).Brown and Cole’s IED offers a practice model thatintegrates four aspects of building design—climate,building, systems, and use—in an effort to achievehigh performance buildings. The model is relevant tothis study as it recognizes the importance of adoptingan integrated perspective, one that includes occupant

use patterns, early in the design process. The intent isto align ‘‘use issues’’ such as schedules, user activities,comfort criteria, and programmatic considerations,with the other quadrants to achieve synergisticbuilding design strategies. The current study expandsthe scope of ‘‘use issues’’ by investigating userbehaviors and use patterns specific to daylightingcontrols (manual blinds).

There is an intricate relationship among design goals,building performance criteria, design decisions,user behaviors and corresponding environmentaloutcomes. The basic design decision of furnitureplacement in the case study building resulted inunexpected environmental adaptations and userbehaviors. Zeisel et al. (1994) eloquently state thesignificance of design decisions.

While designing and constructing a buildingresults in a static physical object, the waypeople perceive it, use, react to and in otherways interact with the object takes place overtime. The apparently static design decisionsthat interior designers, architects and facilityoperators make therefore lead to dynamicresults. Such Environment-Behavior inter-actions can have either beneficial ordysfunctional side effects. . . (p.6).

This complex relationship among the design, theuser, and the building can be further explored andsupported through an integrated design approach,which takes the end users’ needs into account earlyin the design process (Figure 1). A truly integrateddesign approach should ‘‘synthesize climate, use,loads and systems resulting in a more comfortableand productive environment, and a building that ismore energy-efficient than current best practices’’(Brown & Cole, 2006).

Zeisel et al.’s (1994) explanation of E–B interactions,in conjunction with the IED process establishesthe theoretical framework for the current study.These models serve as the lens through which userinteractions with the daylight controls and interiorenvironment are understood.

Journal of Interior Design 18 Volume 37 Number 1 2012


DAY ET AL.

The Integrated Energy Design (IED) model is useful in demonstrating the importance ofthe building use patterns and occupant needs in relation to the overall energy outcomes

and the integrated design process.

Figure 1. The Integrated Energy Design (IED)process (Brown & Cole, 2006).

The E–B model is valuable in understanding therelationship between the static interior environmentand dynamic occupant interactions. The IED model isuseful in demonstrating the importance of the build-ing use patterns and occupant needs in relation to theoverall energy outcomes and the integrated designprocess. The following sections illuminate the impor-tance of these topics in relation to the overarchinggoals of the perimeter daylit office. The issue of blindcontrol remains the common thread throughout eachtheme. The case study findings provide an exampleof issues that can arise when the integration of thesedesign decisions are not fully realized.

Review of LiteratureThe review of literature is divided into the followingareas of inquiry: (l) daylit environments, (2) thepurpose of perimeter offices, and (3) user preferenceand need for control.

The first subsection, relating to daylight designconsiderations, defines key terms and provides asummary of the differing daylight characteristics

associated with climatic conditions, variable sky con-ditions and differences among building orientation.After the primary daylight characteristics are defined,a brief overview of preferred occupant luminousconditions and shading conditions is presented.

Definitions: Daylighting, Illuminance,Luminance, and GlareIlluminance can be described as the total amount oflight falling on a given surface (IESNA Handbook,2000). Illuminance values are often measuredhorizontally at desk height, as this is the level atwhich occupants typically work (Estes, Schreppler,& Newsom, 2004). Luminance is defined as ‘‘thephotometric quantity most closely associated withone’s perception of brightness. It usually refers to theamount of light that reaches the eye of the observermeasured in units of luminous intensity (candelas) perunit area (m2)’’ (IESNA Handbook, 2000). In otherwords, luminance describes the light we actually see.Different colors and reflectance values of materialsand surfaces affect the overall luminance value. Ahigh contrast of luminance values within a spacecan lead to glare problems, which is particularlydifficult for both older individuals and office workersutilizing a computer screen (Chain, Dumortier, &Fontoynont, 2001; Osterhaus, 2005). Ander (2008)notes that ‘‘glare, or excessive brightness contrastwithin the field of view, is an aspect of lighting thatcan cause discomfort to occupants. The human eyecan function quite well over a wide range of luminousenvironments, but does not function well if extremelevels of brightness are present in the same field ofview.’’ Issues with glare are specifically addressedwithin the case study results.

Climatic ConsiderationsStrategies and requirements for daylighting imple-mentation differ based on a building’s specific sitelocation, latitude and climate. The frequency of clear,partly cloudy, and overcast sky conditions can allrender differing daylight characteristics and should betaken into consideration when designing for daylight



DAY ET AL.

During clear and partly cloudy conditions, each of the four cardinal orientations offers alight source that contrasts in both character and illuminance levels.

(Nabil & Mardaljevic, 2005). Similarly, climatevariation establishes thermal considerations that areimportant to take into account when incorporatingdaylighting. For instance, a building designed fordaylight utilization in Seattle, Washington (latitude47.62◦N), renowned for its rainy winters, wouldnot perform well if it were transplanted to a muchsunnier climate such as Miami, Florida (latitude25.76◦N) (Reinhart, Mardaljevic, & Rogers, 2006).

Differences among OrientationDuring clear and partly cloudy conditions, each ofthe four cardinal orientations offers a light sourcethat contrasts in both character and illuminancelevels. The northern skydome provides relativelydim, diffuse, and bluish light. The south differssignificantly, offering direct sunlight in addition toskydome light. The result is a bright, dynamic condi-tion, and excess heat gain if not properly shaded. Eastand west have a variety of conditions: A combinationof sun and skydome (Theodorson & Day, 2010).

The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)Executive Order 13423 (2010) for daylightingrecommends north-facing windows as the first choicefor daylighting orientation. South-facing windowsare recommended as the second choice, with thecaveat that designers utilize fixed overhangs toblock direct sunlight. The building in the currentmeets recommendations for daylight orientation, asit is elongated in the east-west direction (Baker &Steemers, 2002; NIBS, 2010).

Preferred Luminous Conditions and WindowShading ConfigurationsThe literature suggests a wide range of acceptableilluminance levels for occupants. Individuals mayprefer differing illuminance levels based on a varietyof factors including task type, climatic conditions,seasonal characteristics or even cultural differences(Begemann et al., 1997; Nicol, Wilson, & Chiancar-ella, 2006).

Several researchers have explored blind use patternsin relations to window orientation, time of day, skycondition, season, latitude, and workstation position(Galasiu & Veitch, 2006). Blinds are a crucial designfeature needed to control glare and overheatingin daylight environments. The variability of theluminous conditions between orientations requiresdifferent shading treatments and considerations.Horizontal blinds are recommended for control ofthe high sun (south) conditions, while vertical blindsare used to intercept low sun angles on the east, west,and where needed, on the north.

Rubin, Collins, and Tibbott (1978) conducted astudy in which they recorded the blind positions ofperimeter offices in six buildings over three separate10-day periods in October, February, and July.The photographs of the building facades illustratedthat most occupants preferred blind configurationsthat were independent of the sun position orseasonal climatic conditions. One of the study’s mostsignificant findings was that shading configurationdifferences did exist among orientation; north-facingoffice windows were left open more frequently thanthose on the south side which suggested an awarenessof sunlight penetration and heat gain within offices.Rea (1984) conducted a similar study in Ottawa,Canada, which investigated the effect of windoworientation, time of day, and weather conditions onthe use of the blinds. The blind configurations wererecorded on a cloudy day in April and a clear day inMay. Results revealed that the position of the blindstypically did not change throughout the day, but didvary between clear or cloudy sky conditions.

Ultimately, each of these studies exhibits a widerange of individual preferences for shading config-urations and luminous conditions. Orientation, skyconditions, and occupant habits may all contributeto varying occupant preferences. It is important tooutline the diverse spectrum of lighting and shadingpreferences for two reasons. First, these studiesconfirm the need for individual daylight controls.Second, these studies indicate a large variation amongpreferred lighting conditions. A lack of personalcontrols to satisfy occupants’ preferred lighting levels



DAY ET AL.

There are many programmatic and behavioral reasons why one might need individualcontrol of daylight in the interior workplace environment.

may diminish some of the benefits associated withthe perimeter daylit office.

Purpose of the Perimeter Daylit OfficeThe primary goal of a perimeter daylight office isto provide both daylight and views for occupants.Employers’ motivation for providing daylit offices liesin the potential positive employee outcomes includingincreased job satisfaction, increased productivity,and health benefits (Townsend, 2006). Froma practical standpoint, employers benefit frommore satisfied and more productive workers. Inaddition, a healthier employee translates into fewersick days and paid leave (Boyce, Hunter, &Howlett, 2003).

Daylight, Views, Satisfaction, and HealthA link exists between daylight, views, satisfaction,and health (Boyce et al., 2003; Frumkin, 2003;Heerwagen, Johnson, Brothers, & Rosenfeld, 1998).Robbins (1986) states that full spectrum light,originating from daylight, affects humans bothpsychologically and physiologically. Occupants indaylit offices consistently report an increase in generalwell-being over those in traditionally fluorescent-litoffice buildings. Studies have shown that daylightinghas the potential to decrease the occurrence ofheadaches, Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), andeyestrain (Edwards & Torcellini, 2002; Franta &Anstead, 1994; Rashid & Zimring, 2008).

Stress, a common condition in the workplace, canhave serious effects on both the psyche and the body.Windows and natural views in an office environmentserve to reduce stress and eyestrain (Heerwagenet al., 1998). Facilitating the need for contact withthe outside and natural environment is one of themost important psychological benefits of daylighting(Robbins, 1986). Studies have suggested that manyof the health benefits gained in daylit environmentsinvolve the presence of views. However, thesefavorable human impacts cannot be realized ifinaccessible blind controls prevent window access,required for both daylight and views.

The Issue of ControlThere are many programmatic and behavioral reasonswhy one might need individual control of daylightin the interior workplace environment. First, thevery nature of daylight—intense, dynamic, andvariable—generally requires the occupant to respondto the ever-changing conditions. Second, modificationof the daylight source is necessary to support criticalvisual tasks performed in office settings: light levelpreferences, glare mitigation, digital output, andso on. Third, occupants may have personal needssurrounding views, privacy, and health. For instance,individuals suffering from common migraines mayrequire a closed blind position more frequently thanothers may.

Veitch, Hine, and Gifford (1993) studied variousissues related to lighting, in an attempt to betterunderstand the typical user. Researchers distributeda survey to a large number of university under-graduates. The results indicated that daylightingwas important to the majority of respondents, andaccess to control over lighting conditions was highlyvalued. Furthermore, many participants believed that‘‘fluorescent lighting was detrimental to one’s health. . . and natural daylight is superior to electric light’’(p. 15).

A study conducted by Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault,and Duval (2004), observed 118 participants whoworked for a single day under one of four lightingdesigns. The participants went through a period with-out access to lighting control, followed by a secondperiod where participants had access to individuallight dimming controls. Subjects completed variousclerical tasks and responded to a questionnaire of psy-chological perceptions about their experiences duringboth observation periods. Those who made use of thecontrols to change their lighting environment showedthe largest improvement in the satisfaction surveys,while those who made no use of the lighting controlsshowed little or no change in their satisfaction indices.

Whereas the previous studies have suggested a highvariability among individual lighting and shading



DAY ET AL.

Due to the dynamic nature of daylight, occupants need the ability to control daylight.

preferences, these studies clearly demonstrate theimportance of satisfying the range of preferencesthrough individual daylighting controls (Newshamet al., 2004; Veitch et al., 1993).

Summary of Main PointsThe following list outlines the primary conceptspresented in the literature review.

1. People value daylight and views.2. Individuals exhibit a wide range of daylight level

preferences.3. The presence of daylight and views within the

office can have both positive and negative effectson occupants’ health.

4. Occupants desire control of lighting conditions(electric and daylight), and due to the dynamicnature of daylight, occupants need the ability tocontrol daylight.

Although occupants may have a wide range ofluminous preferences, control of the daylight sourceis of the utmost importance. While a plethora ofstudies exist surrounding daylight, there are manygaps within the literature that led to the developmentof this study.

First, most studies deal with control and satisfactionof electric light, not daylight. Daylight has uniquecharacteristics that vary from electric light with regardto the occupant and luminous environment. Second,there is limited research available investigating howand why occupants operate blinds. Third, there is alack of literature involving control, occupant behav-iors, and spatial elements, such as furniture, withindaylit environments. Furthermore, the literaturereview suggests that little or no research examinesthe phenomenon central to this study—inaccessibleblind controls due to furniture placement.

MethodologyThis investigation employs a case study of a singleacademic building with offices. Varying researchstrategies are used to identify multiple data sources,

which included exterior photo documentation,post-occupancy evaluation (POE) questionnaires,and occupant and facility management interviews.For the purposes of the current study, POE isdefined as, ‘‘an appraisal of the degree to whicha designed setting satisfies and supports explicitand implicit human needs and values of those forwhom a building is designed’’ (Friedman, Zimring &Zube, 1978, p. 20). This study built upon previouslyreported research methods developed by IntegratedDesign Lab | Inland Northwest to specifically studyissues of daylight and occupancy in schools andoffices (Day & Theodorson, 2010; Theodorson,2009; Theodorson & Day, 2010, 2011).

Observations include photograph documentationof north-, south-, and west-facing offices fromthe exterior of the building. The protocol forthe exterior photograph documentation follows asimilar methodology to the Rea (1984) and Rubinet al. (1978) studies previously mentioned. Theexterior photograph method was pretested prior tothe official start. The camera type, best exposuresettings, and image sequence were tested and definedbefore the study. Photographs were taken every twohours from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to documentactual blind adjustment frequency and positions asadjusted by occupants. In total, five measurementswere taken per day. Corresponding photographsof the sky were also taken for each data collectiontime period and were later corroborated with theNational Climatic Data Center values for observedcloud cover (NOAA, 2010). Sky conditions variedfrom sunny to rainy. Questionnaire responses andphotographs were collected simultaneously over aperiod of 2 weeks, approximately 1 month after thefall equinox, October 25 to November 4, 2010.

All individuals holding offices within the casestudy building received an online questionnaire,and respondents without exterior windows wereremoved from the analysis. Questions were framedto elicit responses regarding occupants’ access toblind controls, occupant satisfaction surroundingthe office and daylight environment, occupant needs,reported occupant behaviors and demographics.



DAY ET AL.

Multiple data types were collected to strengthen validity and triangulate responses.

Many of the satisfaction questions were adoptedfrom multiple existing, tested and published surveytools (Lee & Guerin, 2009; Stokols & Scharf, 1990;Veitch, Farley, & Newsham, 2002). Both open-endedand closed-ended questions were included on thequestionnaire. Satisfaction responses were gatheredthrough a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (verystrongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). A pilotsurvey was emailed to several students and colleaguesbefore the study start date to ensure effectiveness.

Completed questionnaires were reviewed, andresponses were first separated into three categoriesto address the hypothesis and Research Questions 1and 3, which dealt with occupant access to control.Analyses were conducted to compare the followingthree occupant groups: (1) occupants who couldeasily access and control blinds; (2) occupants whocould not easily access blind controls, and chose notto modify their office, and (3) occupants who couldnot easily access blind controls, but chose to modifytheir office to gain access to controls. Responses werealso categorized by office orientation to address thesecond research question: Do differences exist amongoffice orientation and other measured variables?For the fourth research question, information onthe design process and team was gathered from theuniversity Capital Planning Department.

Multiple data types were collected to strengthenvalidity and triangulate responses. For instance,the exterior photographs recorded the dynamicrelationship between the occupants and blinds, whilethe climate data and time stamps made it possibleto understand if user interactions were related tosky conditions. In addition, questionnaire responses(what occupants reported about blind use) werecompared to the actual blind use as recorded by theexterior photographs. Interviews provided a deeperunderstanding of why certain behaviors occurred,which were either discovered through the blindsphotographs or questionnaire responses.

Case Study Building BackgroundThe case study building, located in Spokane, Wash-ington, was completed in 2008. The design intentwas to create a sustainable, energy-efficient buildingwith natural daylighting features. The buildinghouses faculty offices on four of five floors, whichare located on the south, north and west perimeters;however, the majority of offices are located on thenorth side of the building (Figure 2).

Architectural daylighting strategies slightly varybetween orientation: external sunshading appearson the southern exposure only, and windows on

Figure 2. Typical case study building floor plan.



DAY ET AL.

This paper investigates a very specific phenomenon of inaccessible blind controls, due tofurniture placement, through a case study.

Figure 3. Inaccessible blind controls diagramparticipants.

the south side vary in size while windows on thenorth and west facade are identical. Vertical blindsare used throughout, regardless of office orientation.It is important to note the design process of thecase study building. The design team that developedthe schematic design for the building was not thesame design team that carried out the buildingthrough construction documents and constructionadministration. More importantly, the interiordesigner that specified the blinds and furniture wasnot involved in the schematic design, when thedaylighting strategies were conceived. In the end, theinteriors were configured in mirrored layouts, whichresulted in a spatial and furniture configuration thatdenied occupant access to blind controls in everyother office (Figure 3).

Overall, 35 of 133 occupants responded to thequestionnaire. Multiple follow-up reminder e-mailswere sent to the building occupants over a periodof 2 weeks in attempt to recruit additional surveyparticipants. Respondents include 34 females (97%)and 1 male (3%). The majority of participants werebetween the ages of 46 and 60 (58%), another (17%)were above the age of 61 years, (17%) were betweenthe ages of 35 to 45 years, and the remaining (8%)were below the age of 34 years. The questionnaireresults include responses from north-facing (20),west-facing (5), and south-facing (10) offices. Themajority of classrooms are located on the east side ofthe building, so there are very few offices on the eastperimeter.

After survey responses were evaluated, e-mailinterviews were conducted with nine individuals. Theresearcher purposefully selected one individual fromeach building orientation (3) and each level of control(3) from the pool of questionnaire respondents whoagreed to participate in follow-up interviews. Therewas a 100% response rate for the follow-up e-mailquestions. The e-mail interviews were intended toelicit why and how explanations to specific ques-tionnaire responses in an open-ended fashion. Forexample, occupants that modified their environmentswere asked why and how they chose to do so. The e-mail interviews were not meant to be comprehensiveor exhaustive of the daylight responses for the entirecase study building, but rather indicative of specificquestionnaire responses and appraisals.

AnalysisData were collected from many sources for thiscase study. Descriptive statistics were producedfor questionnaire responses, which included mean,standard deviation, minimum and maximum values.t tests were used to determine statistical significancefor satisfaction means for two separate groupings:(1) occupants with control (including those whoadded extensions or switched blinds upon move-in)versus occupants without access to blind controls;and (2) occupants on the north side of the buildingversus those on the south and west. An alpha level of0.05 was used for all statistical tests (for a confidencelevel of 95%).

Photographs of interior blind positions were firstcoded, and corresponding occlusion values were thencalculated. For the purposes of this study, blindocclusion is defined as the total percentage of blindsobstructing any given window (Foster & Oreszczyn,2001). The values for blind and slat positions rangedfrom (1) to (5). Each value represented a percentageof total blind occlusion (Figure 4).

For example (1) represented fully open blinds, or 0%occluded; (2) represented a blind and slat positionequivalent to 33% occluded (this condition never



DAY ET AL.

Figure 4. Blind occlusion values.

actually occurred in this study); (3) represented allblinds closed and slats rotated 90◦, or blinds pulledhalf-closed and slats fully rotated, which were bothequivalent to 50% occluded; (4) represented blindsclosed and slats rotated at 45◦, equivalent to 75%occluded; and finally a (5) was recorded as a fullyclosed condition (blinds and slats) or 100% blindocclusion. Once all windows were coded, an overallblind occlusion mean was calculated for the entirefacade.

Interview responses were grouped by both orienta-tion and access to control, and served as narrativeexplanations to specific findings within the question-naire results. The WSU Office of Research Assurancesdetermined that this study met the criteria for ExemptResearch at 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2).

Results and DiscussionThis paper investigates a very specific phenomenonof inaccessible blind controls, due to furnitureplacement, through a case study. This section firstreports the results as they relate to the hypothesisand research questions. The case study findings arethen further discussed in relation to the overarchingthemes as reported in the literature review. Lastly,unexpected results, revolving around health and viewresponses, are discussed in relation to occupantsatisfaction, behaviors, and relevant literature.

Hypothesis and Research Questions

Hypothesis: the inability to control daylightimpacts behaviors and satisfaction in daylitoffices.

It was found through questionnaire responses thatbehaviors and satisfaction appraisals for someoccupants were in fact affected by their inabilityto control the blinds and daylight source. Forinstance, when asked ‘‘I can easily access my daylightcontrols,’’ those without access to controls werethe least satisfied, and individuals with access toblind controls were the most satisfied; this wasa statistically significant finding. These results areconsistent with the literature surrounding lightingand controls (Newsham et al., 2004; Veitch et al.,1993); in both of these studies participants with accessto lighting controls demonstrated higher satisfactionresponses. Table 1 outlines findings from the t tests;significant findings are given in bold within the table.Results from all t tests are included to provideadditional insight into the results; however, somequestions are more relevant than others for each of thetwo groupings examined. For the following results,the question designations listed below (i.e., Q1,Q2, etc.) correspond with the satisfaction responsesreported for each of the subsequent graphs andtables.

Q1: I am pleased with the visual appearanceof the office



DAY ET AL.

Table 1. Satisfaction marginal means, standard deviations, and t-test results:Grouping1 (occupant with blind control vs. occupants with no blind control)

Grouping 1 t-test (95% CI) M S.D. n

Q1 Have control t(33) = 1.27, p = 0.10 5.65 0.93 26No access to blind controls 5.22 0.67 9

Q2 Have control t(33) = 1.86, p = 0.03∗ 5.42 0.70 26No access to blind controls 4.66 1.73 9








Q10 Have control t(33) = 3.54, p < 0.01∗ 4.78 1.84 26No access to blind controls 2.44 1.13 9

Note: Likert scale used for satisfaction responses: 1 very strongly disagree; 2 strongly disagree; 3 disagree; 4 neither disagree or agree; 5 agree; 6 stronglyagree; 7 very strongly agree.∗p < .05

Q2: I am pleased with the comfort ofmy personal office furniture (desk, chair,computer, equipment, etc.)

Q3: I am satisfied with the adjustability andmovability of my office furniture

Q4: I am pleased with the colors and texturesof the flooring, furnishings, and surfacefinishes in my office

Q5: I am satisfied with the level of visualprivacy I have from the exterior window

Q6: I am satisfied with the level of visualprivacy from interior window by door

Q7: I am satisfied with the quality of myview

Q8: I am satisfied with daylight in my space

Q9: The computer screen is legible and doesnot have reflections

Q10: I can easily access my daylight controls(blind controls)

Satisfaction assessments were further divided intothree overarching categories: (a) access to controls;(b) no access to control, but modified environment;and (c) no control, but did not modify environmentwhen broken up by overall means (Figure 5).

All occupants reported a uniformly positive level ofsatisfaction with their daylit environment, regardless



DAY ET AL.

It is noteworthy to mention that the inability to access blind controls in some of the officesaffected both occupant satisfaction and behaviors independent of daylight.

Figure 5. Occupant satisfaction means by level of control.

of access to control; this was an unexpected finding.While the inability to control blinds did not affectsatisfaction appraisal of daylight in the office, itdid impact occupant behaviors: the majority ofoccupants manipulated their environments or theirbehaviors to meet their needs.

It is noteworthy to mention that the inability to accessblind controls in some of the offices affected bothoccupant satisfaction and behaviors independent ofdaylight. For instance, there were complaints fromoccupants surrounding the ability to change clotheswithin their office. Conventional office programs donot typically include changing clothes as a primaryoffice behavior, but a large number of faculty mem-bers in this building required such accommodationsrelated to clinical teaching assignments. The inabilityto close the blinds removed the option of changingclothes within some offices, thus inhibiting animportant occupant behavior. Some specific buildingneeds and behaviors, like changing clothes, areimportant to occupants and inextricably linked to thedaylight controls. This uncommon activity providesan example of the importance of identifying occupantpreferences and behaviors early in the design processas identified in Brown and Cole’s (2006) IED model.

Research Question 1: Have occupantsmanipulated spatial elements to gain accessto blind controls, and if so, how and why?

The issue of control was explored in response to thefirst research question. Over 54% of respondentsreported obstructed blind controls. Of these, 63%

of occupants modified their office to gain access tocontrols. Individuals who modified their environmenteither added longer cords or extensions to blindcontrols or asked maintenance to switch blindcontrols to the opposite side of the window (reversedcontrol location). Two other occupants reportedthat they had instead modified their behaviors. Oneoccupant climbed on top of their desk to change theblind position, while the other, a shorter occupant,crawled under the desk. The remaining 37% withoutaccess to blind controls did nothing to their office toreach the inaccessible controls. These differences inoccupant behavior were noted and further addressedin the follow-up interviews.

One respondent without access to controls, who didnot modify their environment, stated, ‘‘I would def-initely change blind position more often if they werea tad easier to reach. I am noticing this much [more]since change of season (summer—sun is high and Idon’t need to adjust, winter—sun is lower and comesdirectly into office) and sometimes I leave them closedmore often than I like because it’s hard to reach.’’ Asecond response revealed that the occupant did notchange the environment, but rather had to modifytheir behavior to reach the blinds, ‘‘It is nearly impos-sible to reach the blinds in my office. I either haveto crawl under my desk or crawl over it!’’ The thirdindividual was less bothered by the inaccessibility tocontrols as they ‘‘always leave them open for maxi-mum daylight and view anyway.’’ This finding is sur-prising as this particular occupant was located on thesouth side of the building. The fact that this individual



DAY ET AL.

always left the blinds open suggests a high acceptanceor tolerance for the variability of daylight and glare.

Respondents who did modify their environmentin some way were also asked additional interviewquestions. When asked why they initially decided tomodify their office, one occupant simply stated, ‘‘Icouldn’t reach the blind controls without climbingon my desk—therefore I added extensions.’’ Anotherinterview response uncovered that the occupant hadnot modified their environment to gain access toblind controls, but rather to move away from thevent. ‘‘I moved the desk unit away from the windowabout two feet to get out of the venting draft inthe ceiling and away from the cold window in thewinter.’’ For the most part, access to controls wasimportant to most occupants, and those withoutcontrol claimed that they would use their blindsmore frequently if they could access them easily.

Research Question 2: Does orientationimpact occupant behaviors and satisfaction?Behavioral responses were explored throughoverall blind occlusion values throughout thestudy period.

Descriptive statistics revealed differences and variancein all mean satisfaction appraisals when questionnaireresponses were divided by orientation. Even thoughresponses varied, most occupant assessments stillremained highly positive (Figure 6).

Occupants on the north side were least satisfied withaccess to blind controls and the quality of their view.

The lower satisfaction appraisals for access to blindcontrols may be explained by two factors: (1) therewere more occurrences of occupants without controlon the north side; and (2) the majority of occupantson the north only had one window while occupantson the south side had two to three windows each. Thelower satisfaction levels on the north for privacy andview were also expected. The quality of view and levelof privacy are highest on the west side, lowest on thenorth side, and somewhere in between on the south.The occupants on the north view the south facadeand offices of the adjacent building. Similarly, theoccupants of the adjacent building are able to lookdirectly into the offices of the north side academicbuilding occupants.

The questionnaire responses revealed that glare was acommon environmental outcome related to daylightin the case study building. One question within thesurvey, ‘‘the computer screen is legible and does nothave reflections,’’ probed at issues and perceptionsof glare within the office. The responses were cat-egorized by office orientation. Although occupantsremained mostly positive, reports of glare did vary byorientation, and the occupants on the south and westfacades represented the least satisfied groups. Addi-tional t tests verified a significant difference betweenglare assessments and orientation, t(33) = 3.06,p < .01, as north occupants reported less instancesof glare than those on the south and west (Table 2).

Over 14% of respondents chose to include additionalcomplaints of glare within the optional open-ended

Figure 6. Occupant satisfaction means by orientation.



DAY ET AL.

Table 2. Satisfaction marginal means, standard deviations, and t-test results:Grouping 2 (north orientation vs. south and west orientation)

Grouping 2 t-test (95% CI) M S.D. n

Q1 North t(33) = 0.44, p = 0.33 5.60 0.75 20South and west 5.47 1.06 15





Q6 North t(28) = 1.73, p = 0.04∗ 4.85 1.42 20South and west 5.70 1.35 14



Q9 North t(33) = 3.06, p < 0.01∗ 5.40 1.05 20South and west 4.07 1.53 15


Note: Likert scale used for satisfaction responses: 1 very strongly disagree; 2 strongly disagree; 3 disagree; 4 neither disagree or agree; 5 agree; 6 stronglyagree; 7 very strongly agree.∗p < .05

sections of the questionnaire. In the follow-upinterviews, one occupant clearly expressed concern,‘‘I have a HUGE problem with the shiny metal win-dow frame. . .very stupid on a south-facing window.I have had to cover the frame in places to preventthe glare.’’ Varying interior daylight strategies, suchas horizontal blinds on the south facade, may havehelped to mitigate instances of glare.

The exterior photographs documented a higher rateof total blind occlusion on the south facade, which isconsistent with the higher reported instance of glareon the south facade in the questionnaire responses(Figure 7).

Overall Blind Occlusion

Existing literature typically presents blind occlusionby facade (Foster & Oreszczyn, 2001). This is becausethere are many differences in the way individualschoose to operate their blinds, and presenting meanocclusion data for an entire facade is a way to general-ize these individual differences. Blind occlusion meansvaried per orientation for the case study building:north 28%, west 53%, south 70%. During sunnysky conditions, blind occlusion values increased onthe south side, while blind occlusion means decreasedon the north side. This may be explained by glareconditions on the south and desire for more daylighton the north during sunny sky conditions. There was



DAY ET AL.

The presence of daylight and views within the office can have both positive and negativeeffects on occupants’ health: occupants noted daylight and views as vital to their

well-being and mental focus.

Figure 7. Blind occlusion means by orientation.

no significant correlation between weather responseand blind occlusion values for the west facade. Themean level of occlusion is highest on the south-facingfacade, which is to be expected and consistent withcurrent literature (Foster & Oreszczyn, 2001).

Research Question 3: Is there a correlationbetween satisfaction and how often occu-pants manipulate their blinds?

Data for this question were evaluated for ques-tionnaire responses and actual exterior photographdocumentation. First, self-reported blind adjustmentfrequency was compared to satisfaction assessments.Pearson r analyses revealed correlations in only threeof the satisfaction categories. A moderate positivecorrelation (r2 = 0.59, p < .01) existed between blindadjustment frequency and the satisfaction responsesgeared toward glare assessment; this suggests individ-uals who report changing blinds more frequently tomitigate glare also report a lower satisfaction rating.Alternatively, privacy and view responses suggestthat occupants who operate blinds more frequentlywere more satisfied with view and privacy. Thesecorrelations do not denote a causal relationship,but rather signify a notable link between the twogiven variables (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2008).These findings further validate the need for occupantdaylight controls. Significant correlations were notfound between any of the other satisfaction categoriesand self-reported blind adjustment frequency.

Satisfaction responses were also evaluated in relationto actual blind adjustment frequency (documentedby exterior photographs). Blind patterns wereisolated for those individuals that provided officeroom numbers on the questionnaire, and satisfactionresponses were compared to blind change frequencyfor those offices only. No significant differences werefound between observed blind change frequency andany of the measured satisfaction appraisals.

Research Question 4: What design processfactors contributed to these issues?

The findings of this study demonstrate the impor-tance of an integrated, multidisciplinary approachto daylighting design, one that considers both thespecific building context and the human response.Early interviews with the Capital Planning Depart-ment and Facilities Manager revealed that the designprocess was not an integrated one, as the project waspassed between multiple design teams throughout thedesign process. It was also reported that an interiordesigner was not included in the design team duringthe design development of the building.

Design issues, such as the inability for occupants tochange clothes within their office, indicate a missedopportunity for coordination between the designteam and user early in the design process. Reportedinstances of glare may also reflect a lack of coordina-tion between the architectural daylighting strategies



DAY ET AL.

Alternatively, inaccessible controls and reports of frequent glare suggest instances of stressand increased difficulty when faced with light-related health problems such as migraines or

frequent headaches.

and interior daylight environment. Incorporating adesign process as described in the IED model, pre-viously discussed in this paper, may have mitigatedsome of the design issues that emerged in this study.The Integrated Design Process (IDP). . .

allows participants to establish performancegoals and a vision for the project that isunderstood and supported by everyone. Suchgoals can serve as the basis for a designprocess based upon an integrated analysisof how different building systems canwork together and thereby identify synergiesamong structural, mechanical and electricalsystems that are conventionally designedin isolation. (Cole, Robinson, Brown, &O’Shea, 2008, p. 327)

Additional Findings as Related to BlindControl, Satisfaction, and HealthEven though the research questions were not relatedto health, questionnaire and interview responsesilluminated specific behaviors surrounding the blindcontrol, or lack thereof, that were directly related tooccupant health. This section is dedicated to reportingsome of these unexpected results.

The online questionnaire gave participants theoption to discuss any light-related health issues attheir discretion. Three individuals reported cases ofmigraines and two reported cases of SAD. Otherlight-related health conditions reported included(1) thyroid eye disease (causes double vision),(2) cataracts, (3) sleep disorders, (4) light sensitivity,and (5) headaches.

The satisfaction responses from the questionnaireindicate a highly positive appraisal of daylight, and100% of interview respondents claimed to valuedaylight and views. Some individuals were willing totolerate glare in exchange for the view and access todaylight. The presence of daylight and views withinthe office can have both positive and negative effectson occupants’ health: occupants noted daylight andviews as vital to their well-being and mental focus.

Alternatively, inaccessible controls and reports of fre-quent glare suggest instances of stress and increaseddifficulty when faced with light-related health prob-lems such as migraines or frequent headaches. Thiscase study found that occupants chose to open blindsto daylight and views for psychological benefits(stress relief, well-being, connection to the outdoors),while others needed to close blinds for physiologicalconcerns (migraines, cataracts, headaches). Theinability to open or close the blinds for these issueswas a problem for some occupants.

The follow-up e-mail interview questions were notdesigned to lead occupants to discuss health factors,but many chose to do so anyway. Several individualsin this building are faculty members in a medicalprofession, so respondents may be more aware ofhealth-related issues. For example, ‘‘[I] highly valuedaylight anywhere! I have worked with only electriclights and find I feel more tired, have difficulty con-centrating, and [used to] avoid meeting with peoplein my office-I have worked night shift under artificiallight and experienced similar effects. . . .’’ Anotheroccupant notes ‘‘daylight is vital to my mental well-being. Electric light would not be the same.’’ Othercomments included, ‘‘connection with the out ofdoors is essential for progression in time; my windowsoverlook a planted tree garden (south west cornerof campus) so my eyes drift away from my monitorand out the window to contemplate and change focallength; I have worked in offices without a windowand the chance to glance outside. I do not find it a sat-isfying environment. The blue skies/sunlight brightenmy mood personally.’’ The interview responses indi-cate a high appreciation for daylight and views, andmost responses report psychological benefits fromeither daylight or views (i.e. ‘‘brighten my mood,’’stress relief, ‘‘connection with the outdoors’’).

Many individuals claimed to open the blinds for stressrelief and mental well-being. However, one occupantstated that they closed the blinds to daylight on occa-sion because the light bothered them when they had amigraine. Similar actions were noted for individualswith headaches, glare issues, and light sensitivity.These findings suggests that occupants chose to



DAY ET AL.

open blinds to daylight and views for psychologicalbenefits, while others needed to close blinds forphysiological concerns; this further substantiates theimportance of access to blind controls.

Conclusion and Design ImplicationsIn this particular building, it is clear that there weresome missteps in the design process that could havebeen easily avoided through an integrated designapproach and better understanding of the occupantneeds and behaviors. It would have been beneficial tohave an interior designer involved early in the designprocess, or at least to have the same designer workon the project in all design stages. There was anopportunity for increased coordination between thearchitectural building envelope daylighting strategies(window placement) and the interior furniture layout,occupant needs, and interior daylight levels duringearly building conception and schematic design.

Design ImplicationsThere were several design challenges uncoveredthrough the current study that could have been easilyavoided through a ‘‘daylight’’ commissioning process.Daylight commissioning is rarely performed, butwould be an effective way to ensure daylight controlsand strategies were working properly before buildingoccupation. Additional client interviews and daylightmodeling, early in the design process, may have alsoreduced some of the negative impacts discovered inthis case study. Varying interior daylight strategies,such as horizontal blinds on the south facade, mayhave helped to mitigate instances of glare (NIBS,2010). Also, while the luminance values of interiorfinishes were not measured in this case study, reportedchallenges with glare confirm the importance ofthoughtful material selection and integration withinany daylighting scheme.

Generalizability and LimitationsIt is important to mention the limitations andgeneralizability issues related to this case study. First,

the sample population was almost completely female(97%), and the majority of respondents were overthe age of 46 (75%). Ideally, most study populationsshould be more evenly distributed between male andfemale participants. Also, it is known that eyes beginto change as individuals’ age, and people over the ageof 40 need more light for detail-oriented tasks (Oster-haus, 2005). Older individuals also tend to have morefrequent issues with glare. This study cannot prove ordisprove that there were more reports of glare due tothe age of participants, but it is certainly a possibility.

Additional limitations to this study include theabsence of offices on the east facade, a fairly lowsurvey response rate (29%), and the study onlylooked at responses and blind patterns for oneperiod of time. Findings may have been strengthenedif measurements were taken seasonally. Also, thequestionnaire results included responses from north-facing (20), west-facing (5), and south-facing offices(10), which does not represent and evenly distributedsample. Finally, reported health issues may have beenhigher in this study as most of the respondents werefaculty members in a health-related profession.

Future StudyFurther research is needed surrounding the interac-tions between the occupant and daylight controls.Future studies could investigate specific occupantexpectations and preferences in daylit spaces. TheIED model previously discussed presents an oppor-tunity for additional research surrounding occupantuse patterns and corresponding energy implications.

Ultimately, interior designers have the opportunity toenhance an individual’s health, work satisfaction, andoverall well-being through correctly implementeddaylight strategies (Boyce et al., 2003; Edwards &Torcellini, 2002; Franta & Anstead, 1994). Theintroduction of daylight into an interior environmentrequires controls and alters occupants’ behaviors:people have a dynamic relationship with daylightby necessity. It is this relationship that ultimatelydetermines the degree of success of the design intent



DAY ET AL.

and underlies the importance of understanding thedynamic quality of the daylight source, both diurnallyand seasonally. Occupant control of the daylightsource is particularly important; when blind controlswere inaccessible, the majority of occupants wererequired to manipulate their environment or theirbehavior. The B–E and IED models are integral inconceiving the theoretical framework for the currentstudy; both models illustrate the importance of therelationship that exists between dynamic daylight,the static interior environment, and correspondingoccupant interactions.

A truly integrated design approach, coupled withan understanding of the dynamic quality of day-light and building specific patterns of occupation,may have mitigated some of the daylight controlissues discovered through this case study. Theseresults will hopefully empower interior designersto become more involved with the project designteam earlier in the design process. All passivedesign strategies—especially daylighting and venti-lation—would benefit from increased interior designinvolvement and integration.

References

Ander, G. D. (2008, November 05). Whole building design guide.Daylighting. Retrieved from http://www.wbdg.org/resources/daylighting.php

Baker, N. & Steemers, K. (2002). Chapter 3: Building form and thepotential for daylighting, daylight design of buildings.(p. 27–40). London, UK: James & James Ltd.

Begemann, S. H. A., van den Beld, G. J., & Tenner, A. D. (1997).Daylight, artificial light and people in an office environment,overview of visual and biological responses. International Journalof Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 231–239.

Bodart, M., & De Herde, A. (2002). Global energy savings inoffices buildings by the use of daylighting. Energy and Buildings,34, 421–429.

Boyce, P., Hunter, C., & Howlett, O. (2003). The Benefits ofDaylight through Windows. (No. DE-FC26-02NT41497)California Energy Commission, 1–88.

Brown, G., & Cole, J. (2006). Rethinking the design process (No.14037/06-1). Portland, OR: Energy Studies in BuildingsLaboratory, University of Oregon and Konstrukt.

Chain, C., Dumortier, D., & Fontoynont, M. (2001). Considerationof daylight’s colour. Energy and Buildings, 33, 193–198.

Cole, R., Robinson, J., Brown, Z., & O’Shea, M. (2008).Re-contextualizing the notion of comfort. Building Research &Information, 36(4), 323–336.

Day, J., & Theodorson, J. (2010). Layers of Light: A Field Study ofDynamic Daylighting Systems and Daylight Variability inClassrooms: Spokane Falls Community College, sn-w’ey’-mnBuilding. Proceedings from ASES Conference. Phoenix, AZ.

Edwards, L., & Torcellini, P. (2002). A Literature Review of the Effectsof Natural Light on Building Occupants. No. NREL/TP-550-30769) National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1–54.

Escuyer, S., & Fontoynont, M. (2001). Lighting controls: A field studyof office workers’ reactions. Lighting Research & Technology,33(2), 77–96.

Estes, J. J, Schreppler, S., & Newsom, T. (2004). Daylightingprediction software: Comparative analysis and application.Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Improving BuildingSystems in Hot and Humid Climates, Richardson, TX, May17–20, 259–267.

Foster, M., & Oreszcyn, T. (2001). Occupant control of passivesystems: The use of venetian blinds. Building and Environment,36, 149–155.

Franta, G., & Anstead, K. (1994). Daylighting offers greatopportunities. Window & Door Specifier-Design Lab, Spring,40–43.

Friedman, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, C. (1978). EnvironmentalDesign Evaluation. New York: Plenum.

Frumkin, H. (2003). Healthy places: Exploring the evidence.American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1451–1456.

Galasiu, A. D., & Veitch, J. A. (2006). Occupant preferences andsatisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems indaylit offices: A literature review. Energy and Buildings, 38(7),728–742.

Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2008). Educational research:competencies for analysis and applications, 9th ed. London:Prentice Hall.

Heerwagen, J. H., Johnson, J. A., Brothers, P., Little, R., &Rosenfeld, A. (1998). Energy effectiveness and the ecology ofwork: Links to productivity and well-being. Proceedings of the1998 ACEEE Summer Study. Washington, DC: The AmericanCouncil for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Heschong, L. (2002). Daylighting and human performance. ASHRAEJournal, June, 65–67.

Lee,Y., & Guerin, D. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related tooccupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings.Journal of Indoor and Built Environment, 18(4), 293–300.

Leslie, R. P. (2003). Capturing the daylight dividend in buildings:why and how? Building and Environment, 38(2), 381–385.

Moore, T., Carter, D., & Slater, A. (2003). Long-term patterns of useof occupant controlled office lighting. Lighting Research &Technology, 35(1), 43–59.



DAY ET AL.

Nabil, A., & Mardaljevic, J. (2005). Useful daylight illuminance: anew paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings. LightingResearch Technology, 37(1), 41.

National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). (2010). ExecutiveOrder 13423 Technical Guidance-Daylighting. Washington,DC. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://www.wbdg.org/references/mou_ daylight.php

Newsham, G., Veitch, J., Arsenault, C., & Duval, C. (2004). Effectof dimming control on office worker satisfaction andperformance. Canada: Institute for Research in Construction,National Research Council.

Nicol, F., Wilson, M., & Chiancarella, C. (2006). Using fieldmeasurements of desktop illuminance in European offices toinvestigate its dependence on outdoor conditions and its effect onoccupant satisfaction, and the use of lights and blinds. Energy &Buildings, 38(7), 802–813.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (2010). Hourly ClimateData. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html#FREE

Osterhaus, W. K. E. (2005). Discomfort glare assessment andprevention for daylight applications in office environments. SolarEnergy, 79, 140–158.

Rashid, M., & Zimring, C. (2008). A review of the empiricalliterature on the relationships between indoor environment andstress in health care and office settings: Problems and prospects ofsharing evidence. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 151–173.

Rea, M. S. (1984). Window blind occlusion: A pilot study. Buildingand Environment, 19(2), 133–137.

Rea, M. S. (2000). The IESNA Lighting Handbook, 9th Edition.New York, NY: The Illuminating Engineering Society of NorthAmerica, ISBN 0-87995-150-8.

Reinhart, C. F., Mardaljevic, J., & Rogers, Z. (2006). Dynamicdaylight performance metrics for sustainable building design.Leukos, 3(1), 1–25.

Robbins, C. L. (1986). Daylighting design and analysis (pp. 4–13).New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Rubin, A. I., Collins, B. L., & Tibbott, R. L. (1978). Window blindsas a potential energy saver—A case study. NSB BuildingScience Series 112, National Bureau of Standards, Washington.

Ruck, N., Aschehoug, O., Aydinli, A., Christoffersen, J., Courret, G.,Edmonds, I., Jakobiak, R., Kischkoweit-Lopin, M., Klinger, M.,

Lee, E., Michel, L., Scartezzini, J. L., & Selkowitz, S. (2000).Daylight in Buildings. A source book on daylighting systems andcomponents. (Report No. IEA SHC Task 21/ ECBCS Annex 29).Retrieved from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory websitehttp://gaia.lbl.gov/iea21/.

Stokols, D., & Scharf, F. (1990). Developing standardised tools forassessing employees’ ratings of facility performance. In G. Davis& F. T. Ventre (Eds.), Performance of buildings and serviceabilityof facilities (pp. 55–68). Philadelphia, PA: American Society forTesting and Materials.

Theodorson, J. (2009). Daylit classrooms at 47n, 117w insightsfrom occupation. In C. Demers & A. Potvin (Eds.), PLEA 2009:Architecture, energy and the occupant’s perspective (286–290).Quebec City: Les Presses de l’Laval.

Theodorson, J., & Day, J. (2010). Occupant perceptions of daylitclassrooms: A comparison of north and south orientation.Proceedings: IDEC Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Theodorson, J., & Day, J. (2011). Effectiveness of DynamicDaylighting. Post Occupancy Evaluation of a Higher Ed Building.Proceedings: PLEA 2011, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Townsend, A. K. (2006). Green business: A five-part model forcreating an environmentally responsible company. Atglen, PA:Schiffer.

Ulrich, R., & Zimring, C. (2004). The role of the physicalenvironment in the hospital of the 21st century: A once in alifetime opportunity. Center for Health Design.

Veitch, J., Farley K. M. J., & Newsham, G. (2002) EnvironmentalSatisfaction in Open-Plan Environments: 1. Scale Validation andMethods. Technical Report No. IRC IR 844, April. NationalResearch Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Veitch, J., Hine, D., & Gifford, R. (1993). End user’s knowledge,beliefs, and preferences for lighting. Journal of Interior Design,19(2), 15–26.

Veitch, J. A., & Gifford, R. (1996). Assessing beliefs about lightingeffects on health, performance, mood and social behavior.Environment and Behavior, 28, 446–470.

Zeisel, J., Hyde, J., & Levkoff, S. (1994). Best practices: Anenvironment-behavior (E-B) model for Alzheimer special careunits. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Care and RelatedDisorders and Research, 9, 4–21.

Received February 15, 2011; revised June 12, 2011; accepted November 9, 2011


Documents

Understanding Controls, Behaviors and Satisfaction in the Daylit Perimeter Office: A Daylight Design Case Study