Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Denied delights of daylight in density: Optimizing building codes to

achieve maximum daylight in apartments of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Saiful Islam a,⁎, Chamila Subasinghe b
a
Department of Architecture, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
b
School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Daylight-inclusive building codes are difficult to establish for rapidly developing dense urban centers in the
Received 28 September 2021 global south. Obstruction Angle (OA) has long been used as a precursor in daylight-inclusive building codes.
Revised 12 April 2022 However, such codes are more suitable for higher latitude cities with low-rise developments but less effective
Accepted 21 April 2022
in low latitude dense cities such as Dhaka. Existing research established Unobstructed Vision Area (UVA) as a crit-
Available online 11 June 2022
ical daylight precursor for dense urban developments. This study further established Canyon Wall Porosity
Keywords:
(CWP) as another critical daylight precursor and detailed a CWP calculation method. Via OA, UVA, and CWP,
Asian capitals this study examined existing Dhaka building codes against optimal values for setbacks, building height limit,
Apartment density Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Maximum Ground Coverage (MGC). The findings revealed: (a) 63° OA is critical for
Building codes Dhaka, and it should be used to set setbacks distances and building height limits (b) front setbacks could be
Daylight factor narrower as streets assist in sustaining 63° OA, but rear-setbacks should be significantly wider (c) MGC should
Environmental deprivation be lower to achieve high CWP for adequate daylight. These findings, especially the introduction of CWP for day-
light inclusivity, could be a catalyst for solar legislation in other mega-urban centers on similar latitudes.
© 2022 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction
In cities having more than 20 million inhabitants, buildings fight
each other for natural light and ventilation (Ng, 2010). Specifically, in-
habitants at lower floors spent extra money for artificial light even dur-
ing daytime (Li & Lam, 2001). For example, when artificial lighting costs
about 10% of the total electricity consumption for residential buildings
in Europe, it is 14.9% for Bangladesh (Bertoldi et al., 2012; Sustainable
and Renewable Energy Development Authority & Ministry of Power
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2015). It is not
only the energy but occupants' psychophysiological requirement of
daylight is also critical. Daily exposure to the rhythms of daylight di-
rectly contributes to both human health and well-being (Abidi &
Rajagopalan, 2020). Despite of the impact of daylight on energy and
wellbeing, due to high land price in dense cities, individual lot owners
are more concern about getting maximum floor area than leaving min-
imum open spaces for daylight access (Acioly & Davidson, 1996;
Strømann-Andersen & Sattrup, 2011). This situation is common for
most of the mega urban capitals of Asia although building codes should
be there to protect its citizens' access to light and air (Acioly & Davidson,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: saif.islam@northsouth.edu (S. Islam), chamilas@curtin.edu.au
(C. Subasinghe).
1996; Pont, 2007). Daylight design and regulation for extremely
obstructed urban environment has been a relatively uncharted area of
study, particularly for the rapidly urbanizing regions of the world
(Kwartler & Masters, 1984). Bardhan and Debnath (2016) thus pointed
out the importance of solar legislation for ensuring daylight availability
in dense urban residences. The importance of solar legislation for utiliz-
ing the sun's energy has been also emphasized by Ralph Knowles since
1976 (Knowles, 2003). This study aims at responding to the stated re-
search gap.
Dhaka's population was already 20 million in 2020 and the growth
rate was 4% approximately (World-Population-Review, 2020). More-
over, Dhaka's residential land price increased 25 times between 1974
and 1989 (Seraj & Alam, 1991). This dictated Dhaka's buildings to oc-
cupy every cubic centimeters that the building code would allow. Un-
fortunately, the authors found that, except for dictating the minimum
value for Window to Wall Ratio (WFR), Dhaka's building codes have
no other mechanism to ensure daylight access to indoor spaces. Indoor
spaces are primarily exposed to outdoor through marginal space gaps
between buildings that are left open only because of setback values.
These in-between spaces became even worse due to six to ten stories
height of buildings. This study found no evidence of using daylight re-
lated guidelines in determining the setback values, building height re-
strictions. Building codes for Indian cities, which are Dhaka's close
neighbors, prescribes minimum distance between buildings based on

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.04.014
0973-0826/© 2022 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe
‘sustained vertical angle requirement’. However, this requirement was
developed for low rise development mostly in higher latitude cities
hence the codes found ineffective for the fastest growing dense Indian
cities (Bardhan & Debnath, 2016). Over the last half century, Dhaka ex-
perienced several amendments in its building codes and the very recent
2020 code is also undergoing through lots of debates. Considering the
above mentioned context, it is worth to investigate Dhaka's building
codes in light of recent development in daylight related guidelines.
The investigation aims to gather insights to make future amendments
of the codes more daylight inclusive. The insights will be equally impor-
tant for other dense cities with similar latitude and socio-economic
background.
Dhanmondi Residential Area (DRA), a Dhaka neighborhood selected as a
case study
DRA is the first planned residential area established in 1950. It is
ideal for case study because it experienced all the amendments in
Dhaka's building codes and there still exist buildings those were built
according to each of the amendments. DRA was meant to be a niche
neighborhood with an average lot size of 1/3rd acre. Initial density
was 3 DU (Dwelling Unit)/Acre with a height limit of two stories
(Afrin et al., 2012). After the independence in 1971, due to rapid urban-
ization, enforcement of the codes become a bit relaxed. By the 1980s,
dwelling density was up to 30 DU/Acre and the height limit was six
stories (Government of Bangladesh, 1996). Building Code of 1996 fo-
cused its control on building density instead of on dwelling density.
Density control measures like setback rules (1.5 m on average) and
height limitation (based on street width) was imposed (Government
of Bangladesh, 1996). Being a privileged and planned residential area
in its origin, DRA inherited wider streets. The setback rules and these
wider streets would soon transform DRA filled with 10 to 12 storied
compact residential towers with marginal space gaps in between. To
control this trend in building density, the statutory agencies kept the
previous building height limit of six stories (Afrin et al., 2012). Soon
enough, it was realized that these six-storied compact apartment build-
ings were lacking natural light and ventilation, especially at lower floors.
In 2008, the Building Code imposed a new set of density control mea-
sures – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Maximum Ground Coverage
Fig. 1. the change in density & development pattern of Dhanmondi Residential Area (DRA).
* For the left two cases, FAR have been inferred; for the right three cases, DU/Acre have been inferred. Dwelling unit size has been considered 200m2, the average size of DRA flats (Labib &
Bhuiya, 2013).
52
Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63
(MGC) (Government of Bangladesh, 2008). Fig. 1 graphically shows
the change in density & development pattern of DRA.
Fig. 1 shows that achieving daylight from surrounding open space
became a challenge with the increase in density. 2008 codes attempted
to provide more open space around. However, rear facing dwelling units
face the same difficulties when two neighboring tall buildings are
placed back to back only leaving the setback areas as space gap in be-
tween. Therefore, it is evident that existing values of setback, height
limit, FAR & MGC need to be examined thoroughly according to daylight
related guidelines. In order to do a well-informed examination, an ex-
tensive review of literatures have been done and it is presented in the
following section.
Literature review
Building codes are supposed to ensure daylight access by allowing a
buildable envelope determined by setbacks and height limit however a
few have been found successful (Niemasz et al., 2011; Unknown, 1951).
This literature review first examines the nature of daylight related legis-
lations among different city building codes - ranging from Asian cities to
North American cities. It includes Indian cities, Hong Kong, Edinburgh,
and New York. Later, it also examines relevant research works on day-
light enhancement in urban precinct.
Building codes in the context of global cities
The two existing codes of India, the National Building Code and En-
ergy Conservation Building Code, only define the minimum amount of
window area as well as choice of glazing material that must be present
for every livable space (Bardhan & Debnath, 2016). However, they lack
restrictive by-laws to preserve adequate open space around dense
buildings that would ensure these windows' access to daylight. On the
other hand, Hong Kong's planning regulations not only define the min-
imum window area but it also defines the minimum outdoor space con-
figuration that these windows must be facing into (Building Ordinance,
2017; Liu & Wu, 1999). However, these space configurations are appro-
priate for low rise development but not for the dense context of Hong
Kong where forty to sixty-story buildings are grouped close together
(Ng, 2010).
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe
For daylight availability in proposed buildings, Edinburgh planning
regulations ensure that the sky is visible from the front half of the room
on ground floor (The City of Edinburgh Council, 2016). To protect daylight
right in existing building, it dictates the proposed building to not to create
an OA of more than 25o. However, according to this legislation, a proposed
building with a 40 f. gap between its neighboring buildings should not be
more than two stories. Therefore, such legislations do not support dense
urban context where multistory apartment buildings were built within
narrower proximity to each other, like in Dhaka (Li et al., 2006).
The stated difficulty regarding density and daylight were somewhat
addressed in New York's zoning regulations (NYC Department of City
Planning, 2017). For low density, the code ensures daylight by setback
rules which are governed by specific OA values (Acioly & Davidson,
1996). Through its amendment in 1961, for medium to high density,
towers with 40% MGC were allowed instead of wide buildings built in
the molds determined by height limit, setbacks, or OA. The idea was
that instead of receiving light over the top of a wide building, light may
come along the side or sides of a thin tall building (Harrison et al., 1950).
This literature review identified that unlike codes of India and Hong
Kong, Edinburgh and New York codes use specific OA values to preserve
daylight accessibility. However, researchers agree that these as well be-
come impractical for dense neighborhoods. Therefore, it was necessary
for this study to examine what researchers have been proposing to en-
sure daylight access in dense urban context.
Daylight enhancement
This study found that majority of research on daylight was domi-
nated by either daylight prediction modelling or daylight enhancement
strategies for standalone buildings. Daylight in dense urban area and its
enhancement found to be limited. Hence, the following section dis-
cusses relevant empirical concepts on daylight in dense urban environ-
ment.
In the 80s, Ralph Knowles came up with the concept “solar envelope’
to help developing solar legislation. It was a zoning device to ensure
solar access by regulating development within limits derived from the
sun's relative motion (Kumar, Khan, Bajpai, et al., 2009). The solar enve-
lope was a pyramid shape theoretical space container where each slope
has been generated considering the minimum sun-obstruction angle
from a respective property line. However, the solar envelope has been
argued for not having the benefit in cooling dominated climate (Lim
et al., 2012). Therefore, application of solar envelope for Dhaka or simi-
lar tropical cities are critical since daylight here is associated with harsh
solar radiation (DeKay, 2010).
Similar to the solar envelope, daylight envelope has been studied by
Mark DeKay (2010). Both Knowles and Dekay demonstrated that a
higher density of about a FAR of 7.5 could be achievable. In their work,
however, higher density was achieved by considering the entire city
block as a single building. Works on achieving higher density on a single
parcel of land have not been found. Moreover, the notion that the larger
the city block, the higher the density has been often discussed in the
mainstream literature (Vartholomaios, 2015). As per these envelopes,
development density on the south-facing parcel had to be lower than
the north-facing parcel (Kumar, Khan, Bajpa, et al., 2009). Therefore,
for an individual residential parcel, these envelopes have a marked neg-
ative impact on developable density (DeKay, 2010).
Additionally, compared to traditional setback and height limitation
rules, for ensuring daylight access, these envelopes have not been at a
stage of enforcement yet (Niemasz et al., 2011; Paramitaa &
Koerniawanb, 2013). Kettles (2008) confirmed that they are effective
as design strategies or design guiding principles (Kettles, 2008).
Kettles's comprehensive review of Solar Access Law in the United
States concluded that most laws have been ineffective or too expensive
due to the lack of enforcement mechanisms. Kettles also found that con-
ceiving implications of these envelopes too complex for non-technical
stakeholders in the business of development including landowners.
53
Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63
Considering the enforcement-related difficulties of the solar enve-
lope, this study found works on urban canyon Aspect Ratio (AR = can-
yon height/canyon width) worth reviewing. Strømann-Andersen and
their colleagues studied daylight availability under street canyons
with different aspect ratios (AR) (Strømann-Andersen & Sattrup,
2011). They simulated indoor daylight and energy demand for six dif-
ferent cases with varying AR - 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2 & 3. Their study found
that, compared to an unobstructed site, artificial lighting expenditure
increases more than six times when AR is 3.0. Considering their findings,
buildings here in Dhaka is supposed to face extreme difficulties. It is be-
cause rear-alley canyon found in buildings built under 2008 Dhaka
codes (right most section in Fig. 1) shows an AR value of 7.5. However,
their work was based on Denmark (56oN latitude) and Dhaka (23oN lat-
itude) experiences higher average outdoor illumination (Lechner,
2015). This demands further examination of high AR values for daylight
availability in tropical cities like Dhaka.
The authors believe that AR and OA are principally similar for their
impact on daylight. If translated, AR of 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 be-
come OA of 27o, 37o, 45o, 56o, 63o and 72o respectively. Evans in his sem-
inal work (Evans, 1980) suggested OA values for different latitudes –
lower OA values for higher latitude cities and higher OA values for
lower latitude cities. He proposed maximum OA value of 40o for cities
with up to 40o latitude. As it was mentioned in the previous section,
OA of 40o is not practical for Dhaka and similar tropical cities including
Hong Kong and Kolkata. Moreover these cities are with 22o to 24o lati-
tude. Therefore, examination of Dhaka's code in light of different OA
values will definitely benefit other stated cities.
(Littlefair, 2001) pointed out that OA values alone should not be the
daylighting criteria where neighboring buildings occupy different
heights. For example, windows could still admit daylight around the
sides of the obstructions. Traditionally, OA was conceived vertically
and thus, like Littlefair, Ng (Ng, 2010) also argued that it has limitation
in considering light coming from the sides of obstructions. Ng consid-
ered horizontal OA as important as vertical OA. Hence, Ng proposed
the Unobstructed Vision Area (UVA) method which was simply a sector
shape open area a window can see when surrounded by high external
obstruction (Ng, 2003). For different building heights, the work also
presented a range of UVA areas (in square meters) that should be
achieved to receive optimum daylight levels. If this was not met, the
proposed design, building setback, window locations need to be revised.
The UVA method was proposed to be incorporated in Hong Kong's new
performance-based building regulation. Due to its multifaceted charac-
ter, this study also flagged UVA as a suitable parameter to examine
Dhaka's daylight deprivation.
Summary of literature review
1. Established OA-based building codes are suitable for low-rise devel-
opment only. Moreover, they have been applied in higher latitude
cities. Researches on OA for dense tropical cities have not been
found yet.
2. For high density development, solar envelope and daylight envelope
proved to be promising but they are found only applicable for city
block scale but not for individual parcel scale.
3. UVA found to be an effective daylight ensuring tool for dense cities
with tall towers but it is a performance-based building regulation.
4. Researchers argue that, compared to the above mentioned ap-
proaches, traditional setback and height restriction rules are easy-
to-understand for non-technical land owners and they do not have
enforcement-related difficulties.
Dhaka city building codes and objective of this study
Concerning quantity of daylight, Bangladesh National Building Code
(BNBC) of 1993 legislates that a bedroom should receive 50 Lux for its
general area and 150 Lux for bedhead and dressing area (Government
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe
of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, 1993). However, it allows day-
light of less than 150 Lux on a working plane if it has an option of
using artificial light. In terms of legislation regarding daylight accessibil-
ity, it only regulates minimum window to floor area ratio of 15%. The
building codes require windows to face either outdoor or internal court-
yard directly. For a building's immediate outdoor space, side and rear
setback values are defined – an average 1.5 m for less than ten story
building and 3.0 m for ten stories or above. For internal courtyards,
the codes define the minimum area of the yard for different building
heights. This study found no daylight related imperial study behind set-
ting up these values.
Therefore, for further amendment of Dhaka building codes, existing
values and their possible alternatives for setback, FAR, MGC and build-
ing height restriction need to be investigated under the light of OA
and UVA.
Methodology
For daylight examination, this study chose computer simulation
over field measurement. Its explanation is given below:
Field measurement vs. computer simulation
Building codes influence the character of surrounding urban can-
yons and affect daylight access in buildings. As shown in Fig. 1, over
the years, Dhaka's building codes have allowed five different densities
for the residential buildings at DRA. However, it was impractical to ex-
pect five types of urban canyons at DRA based on these five densities
as urban canyons at DRA were not representative of any particular set
of building codes. Also noticed was, at DRA, a building may have been
developed following a particular code, but its neighboring buildings
may have been built following an earlier code. Thus, street or alley can-
yons around that building were not a result of a particular code but
rather a result of multiple codes. Consequently, daylight penetrated
through these canyons does not represent an impact of a single set of
codes. In this study, it was considered that if a case is found where a se-
lected building along with its neighboring buildings were all built fol-
lowing one particular code, indoor daylight measured in that selected
building could be considered as the impact of that code. Moreover, for
each of the five densities, such cases were needed to be identified as
well. Otherwise, the comparison would lose its validity. Therefore, ex-
amination through field measurements found to be inadequate for
this study. Considering this context, computer simulation found to be
more appropriate where the studied buildings along with its neighbor-
ing buildings were all virtually constructed based on a single set of
building codes.
Selection of daylight simulation tool
This study used Daysim as a tool for computer simulation. It was de-
veloped by the National Research Council Canada. Daysim uses the en-
gine of Radiance which has been widely recognized for validity during
the last 25 years (Jacobs et al., 2019). Radiance is a backward ray-
tracer that simulates individual light rays to calculate luminous distribu-
tion within a room. It is capable of predicting internal illuminance and
luminous distribution in buildings under different sky conditions. It
uses the concept of daylight coefficient utilizing the sky luminance
models developed by Perez and Tregenza (Reinhart, 2006). According
to Reinhart, for daylight coefficient method, the celestial sky is theoret-
ically divided into disjoint sky patches and contribution of each of them
is calculated for illuminance at a specific point in a room (Reinhart,
2006). This approach was found successful in modelling indoor illumi-
nation of a full scale office with complex shading devices (Reinhart &
Walkenhorst, 2001).
Dhaka occupies latitudes 23.8103° N and longitude 90.4125° E.
Dhaka's climate has been classified as a tropical savanna climate with
54
Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63
a monsoonal season (R. Perez et al., 1993). Dhaka weather file shows
monthly mean sky cover of less than 25% for ¼ time of the year, close
to 50% for ¼ time of the year and relatively higher (75%–85%) in the
monsoon season between June and July. Therefore, the stated variation
in sky condition requires a tool that uses Perez all-weather sky model
which has been developed for all sky conditions from overcast to
clear, through partly cloudy skies (Rea, 2000). As Daysim adopted
Perez all-weather sky model, the study also selected it as the tool for
the simulation.
Validation of computer simulation
Computer simulation needs validation with field measurements. Al-
though Daysim's engine (Radiance) has been widely validated for the
last 25 years (Berardi & Wang, 2014), this study intended to perform
validation testing prior to the simulation of indoor daylight within the
sampled context.
As mentioned earlier, for carrying out a field measurement to study a
building code's impact, a building has to be sampled along with its
neighboring buildings where all buildings were built under the same
sets of codes. As expected, it has been difficult to find five different
groups of buildings at DRA that represented the five sets of codes this
study intended to investigate. Only a handful group of buildings were
identified which were built following the revised building codes of
1996. Therefore, indoor daylight measurement in one of these buildings
could be claimed as the impact of the revised building codes of 1996.
Out of these identified building groups, access was granted to only
one group of buildings to perform daylight measurements in one of its
vacant units. This vacant apartment unit became the case for daylight
measurement, which the study used to validate the computer simula-
tion.
On the 5th floor, the studied apartment unit was located at the
northwest corner of the building facing rear and west side alleys
(Fig. 2, bottom). It has to be noted that the studied building complied
with the side setback but not the rear setback. Therefore, the rear
alley became 2.4 m wide instead of 3.7 m and the side-alleys were
2.4 m wide as it was supposed to be. Despite the discrepancy with
rear setbacks, the study performed daylight measurements in this
sampled unit. Although it may not completely portray the impact
of the revised code of 1996, it could aid in simulation validation for
this study.
Two Onset Hobo data loggers1 were used for indoor illuminance re-
cording. Due to the limitation of having a third Hobo data logger, an
Extech 401,025 Lux Meter2 was used to record outdoor illuminance. De-
spite the accuracy (of 5%) declared by Extech, indoor illumination data
recorded by both the devices were compared. The minimum and max-
imum daylight recorded by these devices were 120 and 2900 lx respec-
tively. Fig. 3 shows the difference between the recorded data for 6 h (9
am to 3 pm) with 10 min interval. The measurement uncertainty found
to be 11 lx.
The Extech light meter was also used to measure reflectance
values for interior wall, floor and ceiling. It was found that the reflec-
tance values of ceilings for both the rooms were similar to each other
(87%). However, the reflectance values of walls and floors were
different. For room 1 (single window) values were 68% and 53% re-
spectively; for room 2 (double window) values were 77% and 63%
respectively.
The Hobo data loggers were placed at the centers of each room at
0.76 m height (Fig. 2 – top left and right). The data loggers were sched-
uled to record illuminance at minute intervals.
Outdoor data was recorded on the rooftop of that apartment build-
ing ensuring minimum obstruction.
1
Logging devices that measure and transmits temperature, relative humidity, and light
intensity.
2
Measuring devices that indicate Illuminance and light distribution.
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Fig. 2. Plan, section & photographs of the studied apartment unit that has been used for simulation validation.

Data from the Extech light meter was recorded manually at minute
intervals from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.
The data was recorded on April 24. Although the weather forecast in-
dicated an overcast sky, it did not turn out to be a complete overcast
one. Rather it was with passing clouds. As measured illumination
under non-overcast condition was difficult to match with simulated
data, this study compared measured illumination ratio (indoor/out-
door) with simulated DF (Lim et al., 2012). For room 1 (single window)
and room 2 (double window), the measured illumination ratio found to
be 0.2 and 0.4 (the leftmost pair of columns in Fig. 4). A total of four

Fig. 3. Difference between data recorded by Hobo data logger & Extech401025 lux meter.

55
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe
Fig. 4. Comparison of DF values obtained from field measurement and simulations with varying levels of details.
simulations were carried out to get the closest results to the measured
data. The simulations vary in terms of the level of external details that
helped to mimic the surroundings of the studied building shown in
Fig. 5 (left).
The first simulation, considering the abstract form of neighboring
buildings (marked as 1 in Fig. 5), showed overestimated daylight result.
For room 1, DF found to be 0.62 and for room 2, DF found to be 0.57
(rightmost pair of columns in Fig. 4). The second simulation considered
building-form details of the neighboring buildings. It included the roof
overhang and part of the building envelope that was being extruded to-
wards the south, occupying part of the rear-alley spaces (marked as 2 in
Fig. 5). For this case, DF found to be 0.57 for room 1 and 0.41 for room 2
(second right pair of columns in Fig. 4). A third simulation was carried
out to get closer DF values which included the impact of shading devices
of the neighboring building (marked as 3 in Fig. 5). The results were in
better agreement with the field measurement. DF values found to be
0.43 for room 1 and 0.23 for room 2 (the middle pair of columns in
Fig. 4). A fourth simulation was carried out to get even closer DF values
which included the impact of windowpanes along with the shading de-
vices of that neighboring building (marked as 4 in Fig. 5). No significant
improvement was observed. DF values found to be 0.42 for room 1 and
Fig. 5. Visualization of details observed in the case study building along with details considered in four simulations carried out for validation.
56
Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63
0.23 for room 2 (the second left pair of columns in Fig. 4). As per the le-
verages outlined in the study, this found to be an acceptable validation
since the difference between the measured and simulated results for
room 2 is 5% and room 1 is 15%.
Simulation for comparing the impact of different codes
For the simulation that was validated by field measurements, stud-
ied room measurements were 3.75 m by 4.35 m (having double win-
dows) and 3.0 m by 3.0 m (having single window). The resolution of
sensors' grid was 0.5 m, and the grid was placed at 0.76 m above the
floor. For the simulations carried out for comparing the impact of differ-
ent codes, rooms were all same size (4.5 m by 4.5 m) either facing a
street, a side alley, or a rear alley. The resolution of the sensors' grid
and placement height was the same as it was for the validated simula-
tion.
For the simulation that was validated by field measurements, surface
reflectance values of wall, floor and ceiling were as same as the studied
apartment unit. For the simulations carried out for comparing the im-
pact of different codes, surface reflectance values of interior wall, floor
and ceiling were set according to IESNA guidelines (Rea, 2000).
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Table 1 code of 2008. In general, it was assumed that the daylight will be de-
surface reflectance values used in simulations. creased with the increase in density. However, Fig. 6 shows that the as-
Type of IESNA Guidelines for Reflectance Values sumed linear relationship between density and daylight availability did
surfaces reactance value (%) selected for simulation (%) not occur at DRA. In cases of lowest and highest density, the assumption
Ceiling 60–90 70 was correct – with the lowest FAR of 0.25, 100% of rooms achieved the
Wall 35–60 50 targeted DF; with the highest FAR of 6.75, only 13% of rooms achieved
Floor 15–35 20 the targeted DF. When FAR of 1.25 and 5.25 was considered, this rela-
tionship was not present. Under FAR of 1.25, 100% of rooms achieved
Table 2 the targeted DF but under FAR of 5.25 which was a much higher density,
Radiance simulation parameters considered in this study. 75% of rooms achieved the targeted DF. This anomaly was also evident
when FAR of 6.75 and 5.25 was considered. Although the density differ-
Parameters Min Accurate Max Values used in simulation
ence was much less, daylight availability varied significantly – 13%
Ambient bounces 0 2 8 5 under FAR of 6.75 and 75% under FAR of 5.25.
Ambient accuracy 0.5 0.15 0 0.1
Ambient resolution 8 128 > 300
To examine this anomaly, OA created within the surrounding urban
Ambient divisions 0 512 4096 1000 canyons for all three cases with FAR of 3.25, 5.25 and 6.75 were re-
Ambient super-samples 0 256 1024 20 viewed. With plans and sections, Fig. 7 shows the character of street,
rear-alley and side-alley canyons created under these three cases. The
graph presented in Fig. 7 shows that values of OA were not linearly pro-
Table 1 shows the selected reflectance values for different surfaces portional to density. For street canyons, with a 40% increase of FAR
along with IESNA guidelines. For exterior wall, reflectance values were (from 3.75 to 5.25), the OA increase was only 9%. However, with an in-
also 50% as the subsequent reconnaissance survey found no significant crease of 29% FAR (from 5.25 to 6.75), OA increased 26% (from 43o to
difference between indoor reflectance values to that of the exterior 47o). This anomaly also exists in rear-alley canyons. With a 40% increase
one. Ground reflectance was 20% which is the default value of Daysim of FAR, OA at rear-alley canyon decreased by 23% whereas, with another
tool. Single pane window was chosen as it was still the prevailing 29% increase of FAR (5.25 to 6.75) OA again increased by 30% (from 81o
trend in residential buildings at DRA. Visual transmittance for glazing to 59o). For side alley canyons, the increase of FAR did not significantly
set at 90%, and visual transmissivity was set at 98%. affect OA. This was due to the context that maximum lots were north/
Table 2 shows the simulation parameters that were selected for this south-oriented where buildings tend to extend towards the side site
study. It also shows the minimum, maximum and accurate values that lines (east/west) in order to maximize southern and northern exposure
researchers agreed on earlier (Berardi & Wang, 2014). for all FAR cases.
The above analysis shows that OA does not depend on density (FAR)
alone. A close review of the plans and sections shown in Fig. 7 confirmed
Results that OA depends on building configuration and its position on the site.
Compared to the first case with a FAR of 3.75, the second case (FAR of
This study first conducted indoor daylight simulations for built envi- 5.25) allowed much lower OA for both street and rear-alley canyons.
ronments built according five amendments of Dhaka building codes. For The reason being higher FAR was achieved with the increased height
each case, neighboring buildings' impact on daylight in a studied build- limit and reduced MGC. Moreover, if this structure was pushed towards
ing was simulated. For each case, the studied building had a set of eight the front site line by imposing an increased rear setback, the OA for a
rooms (Fig. 7) for DF simulation – three rooms facing street canyon, rear-alley canyon would be much higher and further the OA for a street
three rooms facing rear-ally canyon and the remaining two rooms fac- canyon would be much lower. Similarly, this would be reversed if the
ing either of the side-alley canyons. At first, it was intended to examine structure was pushed towards the rear site line by imposing an in-
which code would allow more rooms with a DF of 0.5, the minimum DF creased front setback.
for a bedroom (Lechner, 2015). Fig. 6 shows the chronological change in To study this assumption, variation in building configuration and
density and the associated change in daylight availability. building position on a south-facing DRA lot were examined. Different
Fig. 6 shows that the density of DRA in FAR was 0.25 under the code sets of density control measures namely MGC, Setbacks and Height
of 1950, 1.25 under the code of 1980, 6.75 under the proposed code of Limits were the determinant factors for these variations. A total of
1996, 3.75 under the revised code of 1996 and finally 5.25 under the twelve cases have been examined – four cases (A, B, C & D) for each of

Fig. 6. Chronological change in density at DRA along with the resultant daylight availability.

57
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe
Fig. 7. Obstruction angles created within the surrounding urban canyons in cases with FAR of 3.25, 5.25 and 6.75.
the three FARs (3.75, 5.25 & 6.75). Table 3 shows that under the same
FAR, across the rows, OA varies based on MGC, Setbacks and Height
Limits. It also demonstrated that under each set of density control mea-
sures, across the columns, OA increases gradually as FAR increases.
Therefore, it was evident that it was not just the density but also the
building codes' density control measures in their combined effect that
influence OA in surrounding urban canyons.
At this stage, daylight simulation for all the twelve cases shown in
Table 3 was conducted (Fig. 8). For individual canyons under each
FAR, the peaks of the darker part of the columns represent the lowest
achievable DF and the peaks of the lighter part of the columns represent
the highest achievable DF. The small horizontal bars on each of the col-
umns show the DF levels for each of the four cases. The attached alpha-
bets represent the respective cases and the numbers within the
parenthesis are the respective OAs. From Fig. 8, it was evident that the
scope of achieving higher DF gradually decreases as FAR increases. How-
ever, it was also evident that under the same density, DF varies based on
building configuration.
Fig. 8 also demonstrates that 0.5 DF is achievable in a street-facing
room under FAR of 3.75 by adopting building configuration of A, B & C.
For a rear-alley facing room under FAR of 3.75, DF 0.5 can be achieved
by adopting building configuration of B & D. For a side-alley facing
room under FAR of 3.75, DF 0.5 can only be achieved by adopting
58
Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63
building configuration B. Therefore, for FAR of 3.75, at least one building
configuration (case B) allows the minimum DF 0.5 for rooms facing all
the surrounding canyons. For FAR of 5.25, building configuration B
was the only case that allowed the minimum DF for rooms facing street
and rear-alley but not for rooms facing side-alley. This was the same for
FAR of 6.75. Therefore, it was evident that DF 0.5 can be achieved for FAR
of 3.75 but for FAR of 5.25 and 6.75, DF 0.5 goal was only possible for
rooms facing street and rear-alley but not for the ones facing side-alley.
Fig. 8 also shows the OA values associated with the DF values for
each case. It was evident that the side-alley facing rooms were in
lower DF values due to their higher OA values (between 78o to 82o).
Out of twelve cases, nine cases were having side-alley canyons with
OA of 82o. However, a side-alley facing room of case B under FAR of
3.75 achieves DF 0.5, despite having a high OA like 78o. There were
other examples of such anomalies as shown in Fig. 8. There were three
cases with 78o OA where DF was 0.1. To examine this anomaly, a corre-
lation study was carried out between DF and OA values. The correlation
coefficient found to be −0.94 and Fig. 9 shows an inverse trend line be-
tween DF and OA.
Fig. 9 shows that OA needs to be less than 63o to achieve a DF of 0.5
or more. This could be further established in the review of Fig. 8. Except
for a few cases, all the rooms having DF of 0.5 is facing canyons with OA
of less than 63o. However, the anomaly identified in Fig. 8 and discussed
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Table 3
visual description of the studied cases along with the determinant density control measures.

Building Codes’
density control
1 2 3

measures
Cases

FAR 3.75 FAR 5.25 FAR 6.75

Highest MGC + HL by FAR
+ Lower setbacks

A
Lower MGC + AHL + Equal
front & rear setbacks

B
Higher front setback &
Lower MGC + AHL +

lower rear setbacks

C
Lower front setback &
higher rear setbacks
Lower MGC + AHL +

MGC = Maximum Ground Coverage; AHL = Aviaon related Height Limit;

earlier, has not been resolved yet. At this stage, the impact of other
possible variables on DF was explored. The relevance of the UVA
method for daylight study in dense urban areas, was established by
Ng (Ng, 2010). Therefore, UVAs for all the studied rooms were exam-
ined. UVAs for all eight rooms for each of the twelve cases were
drawn and calculated using AutoCAD software. A few samples of
the drawings were rendered in Photoshop software (Fig. 10). For
comparing UVA among the studied cases, instead of square meter
areas, the percentage of UVA (ideal vs. achievable) for each room
was considered. The dotted circular sectors represent the ideal UVA
prescribed by Ng (2010) where the angles are constant (1000), but
the radiuses vary according to building height.
At this stage, a correlation study was conducted to examine the
relationship between DF values and UVA percentages. The correlation
coefficient found to be 0.93. As represented in Fig. 11, although the
trend line suggested that UVA has to be more than 43%, there exists ex-
amples where DF 0.5 has been achieved with less than 43% UVA.
Consequently, the study necessitated an examination to see whether
there was any combined role of OA and UVA in achieving the identified
DF values. In the process, both OA and UVA percentages were tabulated
side by side against the achieved DF (Table 4).
As highlighted in Table 4, the tabulation intended to verify whether
the identified OA (<63o) and UVA (>43%) values could achieve DF 0.5
or not (DF 0.5 and above highlighted in yellow). Except for three cells
outlined in red, all the highlighted cases agreed with the findings.
Among these three, the redlined Case-B under FAR 3.75 demands
further investigation. It is because its OA is high (78o) and UVA is low
(15%) but it still gets 0.5 DF. A careful review of its geometry (row-3,
column-3 of Table 3) shows that its surrounding canyon walls have
more voids than solids. This study termed it as Canyon Wall Porosity
(CWP). CWP is further explained in Fig. 12 using Case 1A and 1B as
references. It is evident that OA (43o & 44o) and UVA values (95% &
99%) for Case 1A and B were quite close but street CWPs (8% and 32%)
were distinctively different. Therefore, initial argument would be that

59
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Fig. 8. Daylight availability in the studied cases along with associated OA values.

Fig. 9. Relationship between DF and OA (Correlation coefficient − 0.94).

Fig. 10. Rendered Unobstructed Vision Area (UVA) for three random cases - 1A, 2B and 3C.

60
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Fig. 11. Relationship between DF and UVA (Correlation coefficient 0.93).

1A received DF 0.8 due to low CWP (8%) and 1B received DF 1.1 due to
high CWP (32%).
To examine the impact of CWP on DF, CWP values for all the cases
were calculated. OA, UVA and CWP values were reviewed side by side
against the achieved DF (Table 5). It was evident that CWP alone does
not change DF, but it assisted OA in bringing a significant change in
DF. When OA remains similar but CWP changes, DF also changes. This
is evident in the blue-outlined cells of Table 5. The left blue-outlined
cell has been discussed in the previous paragraph. For the right blue-
outlined cell, OAs were the same – 82o but DF varies from 0.0 to 0.2 be-
cause CWPs were different – 22% & 58%. In both red cells in Table 5, it
was noted that for the same CWP values, DF changes as OA changes sig-
nificantly.
To examine the observation mentioned above, a correlation study
was carried out between DF and CWP values. The correlation
coefficient found to be −0.15 which was significantly poor. This
complemented the observation that CWP alone has little impact on
DF. Based on the functions flagged in Table 5, a subsequent regres-
sion analysis was carried out to predict the behavior of DF depending
on OA, UVA a CWP. It was found that the P-value of both OA and CWP
are significant, 9.7E-07 and 6.2E-08 respectively but it was 0.3 for
UVA. Therefore, another regression analysis was carried out exclud-
ing UVA. At this time, the P-value of OA found to be stronger which is
1.1E-23. The P-value of CWP was 6.4E-08. R2 of the first regression
model was 0.96 and the second one was 1. From this examination,
the study established that OA and CWP were critical in achieving op-
timum daylight in density.
Next, CWP were examined considering Tables 3 and 5. It was re-
vealed that both MGC and building height have direct impact on CWP.
As evident in Table 3, for case A, MGC is high and building height is
low for all three FARs. In cases B to D, MGC was low but building height
was high for all three FARs. From Table 5, it was noted that CWP was low
in case A for all three FARs and CWP is high for the rest three cases.
Therefore, it can be argued that keeping the same FAR, DF can be
improved by adopting a building configuration that has lower MGC
and higher height since it allows higher CWP without compromising
density.
The study further found that calculating the ratio of void portion of
canyon walls against the solid portion was quite effective in measuring
the mentioned CWP. In calculating the length of a solid portion of a can-
yon wall, the study considered three buildings in a row along the
canyon with the subject building being at the center. Moreover,
only half of the lengths of buildings on both sides were considered.
In calculating the length of a void portion of a canyon wall, the
width of the remaining canyons (either street, rear-alley or side-
alley) were considered. Fig. 12 demonstrates these considerations
for CWP calculation.
Conclusion
Building codes have the capacity to ensure daylight by enacting
setback and building height limit governed by optimum Obstruction
Angle (OA). Unfortunately, such building codes are mostly found for
low-density developments in higher latitude cities. Building codes'
density control measures, like Maximum Ground coverage (MGC)
and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), also control daylight availability. How-
ever, daylight availability is compromised when these values are
high. This study identified inconsistencies between sciences of
daylight manifestation and statutory compliance as stipulated in
Dhaka's building codes. Therefore, it intended to investigate existing

Table 4
comparison among the studied cases in terms of DF, OA & UVA values.

FAR 3.75 FAR 5.25 FAR 6.75

Cases

Street Rear Side Street Rear Side Street Rear Side

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA
OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA
DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

A 0.8 43 95 0.1 77 5 0 81 2 0.7 48 95 0.1 79 5 0 82 2 0.6 59 37 0.1 78 4 0.1 80 3

B 1.1 44 99 0.9 53 70 0.5 78 15 0.8 47 91 0.5 59 47 0.2 82 2 0.7 51 78 0.5 64 31 0.1 82 15
C 1.4 31 100 0.1 82 2 0.4 78 11 1 36 100 0.1 82 2 0.2 82 2 0.9 41 100 0.1 82 2 0.1 82 2
D 0.5 68 27 1.1 36 100 0.4 78 13 0.3 68 22 0.8 36 100 0.2 82 2 0.3 68 22 0.7 48 88 0.1 82 2

61
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63

Fig. 12. Calculation and comparison of CWP for Case 1A and 1B.

setbacks, height-limit, MGC and FAR to explore possible amend-
ments.
Considering the high density of Dhaka city, along with OA, this
study used Unobstructed Vision Area (UVA) in its investigation.
Previous researchers have identified UVA as a precursor for daylight
in dense neighborhood. This study also identified and introduced
Canyon Wall Porosity (CWP) as a critical precursor for daylight in
dense neighborhood. Therefore, the study investigated existing
setbacks, height-limit, MGC and FAR through the light of OA, UVA
and CWP. The aim is to propose possible amendments that will not
only serve Dhaka but also other cities with similar latitude and
urban morphological condition.
For the context of DRA, a Dhaka residential neighborhood, a
total of twelve types of built environment were simulated for in-
door daylight availability. These twelve cases vary in terms of set-
backs, height limit, MGC and FAR. For each of these cases, indoor
daylight for rooms facing street-canyon, side-alley canyon and
rear-alley-canyons have been simulated. The simulated DF were
then examined under the light of OA, UVA and CWP. The study con-
cluded the following:
• A maximum Obstruction Angle (OA) of 63o found to be critical in de-
termining setback and height limits.
• Front setback should be kept narrower as streets help to sustain 63o
OA and rear setback should be kept significantly wider to maintain
63o OA.
• An UVA of 43% (ideal vs. achieved) found to be adequate for Dhaka's
context.
The study identified Canyon Wall Porosity (CWP) as a critical pre-
cursor for daylight in dense urban area. Higher CWP assists daylight ac-
cessibility and it increases as MGC decreases. Therefore this study
suggests that future amendments of Dhaka building codes would
allow lower MGC.
The above findings, if considered, will make future amendments of
the building codes more daylight inclusive. The methodology of using
OA, UVA and CWP in determining ideal setbacks, height-limit, MGC

Table 5
comparison among the studied cases in terms of DF, OA, UVA & CWP values.

FAR 3.75 FAR 5.25 FAR 6.75

Street Rear Side Street Rear Side Street Rear Side
Cases

CWP

CWP

CWP

CWP

CWP

CWP

CWP

CWP

CWP
UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA

UVA
OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA

OA
DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

DF

A 0.8 43 95 9 0.1 77 5 9 0 81 2 22 0.7 48 95 9 0.1 79 5 9 0 82 2 22 0.6 59 37 18 0.1 78 4 18 0.1 80 3 21

B 1.1 44 99 32 0.9 53 70 32 0.5 78 15 68 0.8 47 91 22 0.5 59 47 22 0.2 82 2 58 0.7 51 78 22 0.5 64 31 22 0.1 82 15 49

C 1.4 31 100 32 0.1 82 2 32 0.4 78 11 68 1 36 100 22 0.1 82 2 22 0.2 82 2 58 0.9 41 100 22 0.1 82 2 22 0.1 82 2 49
D 0.5 68 27 32 1.1 36 100 32 0.4 78 13 68 0.3 68 22 22 0.8 41 100 22 0.2 82 2 58 0.3 68 22 22 0.7 48 88 22 0.1 82 2 49

62
S. Islam and C. Subasinghe
and FAR insights will be equally important for other dense cities with
similar latitude and socio-economic background. With the assurance
of adequate daylight, the proposed amendments will ensure a reduced
residential lighting expenditure for its residents.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Abidi, S., & Rajagopalan, P. (2020). Investigating daylight in the apartment buildings in
Melbourne, Australia. Infrastructures, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures
5100081.
Acioly, C., & Davidson, F. (1996). Density in urban development. Building Issues, 8(3),
3–25.
Afrin, S., Zerin, I., Sharmin, S., & Morshed, K. M. (2012). Transformation of Dhanmondi res-
idential area-causes, effects and proposal to rejuvenate. Asian Journal of Applied Sci-
ence and Engineering, 1(2).
Bardhan, R., & Debnath, R. (2016). Towards daylight inclusive bye-law: Daylight as an en-
ergy saving route for affordable housing in India. Energy for Sustainable Development,
34, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.06.005.
Berardi, U., & Wang, T. (2014). Daylighting in an atrium-type high performance house.
Building and Environment, 76(Supplement C), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2014.02.008.
Bertoldi, P., Hirl, B., & Labanca, N. (2012). Energy efficiency status report 2012. (EUR 25405
EN). Italy Publications Office of the European Union.
Building Ordinance. (2017). Chapter 123.
DeKay, M. (2010.). Daylighting and urban form: An urban fabric of light. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, 27(1), 35–56 Spring.
Evans, J. M. (1980). Housing, climate and comfort. London: Architectural Press.
Government of Bangladesh. (1996). Imarot Nirman Bidhimala (building construction
ruless)1996. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Ministry of Housing and Public Works. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.rajukdhaka.gov.bd/rajuk/frmactsHome?type=acts.
Government of Bangladesh. (2008). Dhaka Mahanagar building (construction, develop-
ment, protection and removal) rule' 2008. Retrieved fromDhaka, Bangladesh: Ministry
of Housing and Public Works. http://www.rajukdhaka.gov.bd/rajuk/frmactsHome?
type=acts.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. (1993). Bangladesh national building
code. Dhaka.
Harrison, Ballard, & Allen (1950). Plan for rezoning the city of New York.
Jacobs, C., Singh, T., Gorti, G., Iftikhar, U., Saeed, S., Syede, A., & Siderius, C. (2019). Patterns
of outdoor exposure to heat in three South Asian cities. Science of the Total
Environment, 674, 264–278.
Kettles, C. M. (2008). A comprehensive review of solar access law in the United States sug-
gested standards for a model statute and ordinance.
Knowles, R. L. (2003). The solar envelope: Its meaning for energy and buildings. Energy
and Buildings, 35(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00076-2.
Kumar, S., Khan, A., Bajpa, A., Rao, G. S., Mathur, J., Chamberlain, L., & Garg, V. (2009). En-
ergy Conservation Building Code (ECBC): User Guide. Retrieved from New Delhi.
Kumar, S., Khan, A., Bajpai, A., Mathur, J., Chamberlain, L., Thomas, P. C., & Garg, V. (2009).
Energy conservation building code user guide. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Energy Effi-
ciency.
Kwartler, M., & Masters, R. (1984). Daylight as a zoning device for midtown. Energy and
Buildings, 6(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(84)90072-0.
Labib, S. M., & Bhuiya, M. M. R. (2013). Location and size preference for apartments in
Dhaka and prospect of real estate market. Bangladesh Research Publications Journal,
9(2), 87–96.
63
Energy for Sustainable Development 69 (2022) 51–63
Lechner, N. (2015). Heating, cooling, lighting, sustainable design methods for architects
(4th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Li, D., & Lam, J. (2001). Daylighting in residential districts undergoing urban renewal. Int. J.
Ambient Energy, 22(3), 115–122.
Li, D. H. W., Wong, S. L., Tsang, C. L., & Cheung, G. H. W. (2006). A study of the daylighting
performance and energy use in heavily obstructed residential buildings via computer
simulation techniques. Energy and Buildings, 38(11), 1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2006.04.001.
Lim, Y. -W., Kandar, M. Z., Ahmad, M. H., Ossen, D. R., & Abdullah, A. M. (2012). Building
façade design for daylighting quality in typical government office building. Building
and Environment, 57(Supplement C), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.
2012.04.015.
Littlefair, P. (2001). Daylight, sunlight and solar gain in the urban environment. Solar
Energy, 70(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(00)00099-2.
Liu, E., & Wu, J. (1999). Housing standards of domestic buildings in Hong Kong. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.legco.gov.hk/yr99-00/english/sec/library/990in3.pdf.
Ng, E. (2003). Applying computational simulation results to the development of a design
method for daylighting design and regulation in high-density cities paper presented at
the eighth international IBPSA Conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Ng, E. (2010). Designing for daylighting. In E. Ng (Ed.), Designing high-density cities for so-
cial & environmental sustainability (pp. 181–194). London: Earthscan.
Niemasz, J., Sargent, J., & Reinhart, C. F. (2011). Solar zoning and energy in detached residen-
tial dwellings. Paper presented at the symposium on simulation for architecture and
urban design 2011 (SimAUD 2011) Boston, Massachusetts, USA3–7 April.
NYC Department of City Planning. (2017). New York City planning. Retrieved fromhttps://
www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/about-zoning.page.
Paramitaa, B., & Koerniawanb, M. D. (2013). Solar envelope assessment in tropical region
building case study: Vertical settlement in Bandung, Indonesia. Paper presented at the
the 3rd international conference on sustainable future for human security SUSTAIN
2012, Kyoto, JapanNov 03–05.
Perez, R., Seals, R., & Michalsky, J. (1993). All-weather model for sky luminance
distribution-prelimiary configuration and validation. Solar Energy, 50(3), 235–245.
Pont, M. B. (2007). The relation between urban form and density. Urban Morphology, 11
(1), 142–146.
Rea, M. S. (2000). The IESNA lighting handbook: Reference & application (9th ed.). New
York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
Reinhart, C. F. (2006). Tutorial on the use of Daysim simulations for sustainable design.
Canada: Institute for Research in Construction.
Reinhart, C. F., & Walkenhorst, O. (2001). Validation of dynamic radiance-based daylight
simulations for a test-office with external blinds. Energy and Buildings, 33.
Seraj, T. M., & Alam, M. S. (1991). Housing problem and apartment development in Dhaka
City. In S. U. Ahmed (Ed.), Dhaka past present future (pp. 471–489). Dhaka: The Asiatic
Society of Bangladesh.
Strømann-Andersen, J., & Sattrup, P. A. (2011). The urban canyon and building energy
use: Urban density versus daylight and passive solar gains. Energy and Buildings, 43
(8), 2011–2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.04.007.
Sustainable and Renewable Energy Development Authority, ampMinistry of Power
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. (2015). Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Master Plan up to 2030. Retrieved fromhttp://sreda.gov.bd/files/EEC_
Master_Plan_SREDA.pdf.
The City of Edinburgh Council. (2016). Edinburgh local development plan. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20013/planning_and_building/66/
edinburgh_local_development_plan.
Unknown (1951). Building size, shape and placement regulations: Bulk Control Zoning
reexamined. Yale Law Journal, 60(3).
Vartholomaios, A. (2015). The residential solar block envelope: A method for enabling the
development of compact urban blocks with high passive solar potential. Energy and
Buildings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.04.046.
World-Population-Review (2020). Dhaka population 2020. Retrieved fromhttps://
worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/dhaka-population/.