Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; Vol.

46: 619–636

LRT symposium ‘Better metrics for

better lighting’ – a summary
PR Boyce PhDa and KAG Smet PhDb
a
Canterbury, UK
b
ESAT, Light and Lighting Laboratory, KU Leuven, Ghent, Belgium

Received 29 August 2014; Revised 3 October 2014; Accepted 14 October 2014

A metric is a well-defined measure that a designer can use to evaluate a design.

For many years, the most widely used metrics in general lighting practice have
been the average illuminance, the associated illuminance uniformity, the daylight
factor, the correlated colour temperature and the CIE General Colour Rendering
Index of the light source, the Unified Glare Rating and the power density of the
installation. All these metrics have limitations with the result that there are now
many proposals for replacing them with metrics more suited to delivering better
lighting. This paper, which is based on the presentations given at the LRT
symposium held in London on the 15 July 2014, considers the desirable attributes
of a metric, summarises the proposed new metrics and considers how likely they
are to be adopted and, if they are, whether or not they are likely to lead to better
lighting.

1. Introduction generated and published to promote better

The design of lighting installations is con-
strained by laws and regulations. Laws and
regulations are produced by governments in
pursuit of specific objectives. For lighting,
these objectives can range from ensuring the
health and safety of the public1,2 to limiting
the use of electricity.3 Laws are typically
framed to express general principles.
Regulations are the means by which laws
are put into effect because regulations, such
as the UK Building Regulations, can be
prescriptive and quantitative and can more
easily be changed when desired. Laws and the
associated regulations have to be obeyed.
The designer of lighting installations will
also be aware of another set of constraints,
the guidance issued by professional organisa-
tions in the form of lighting recommenda-
tions.4,5 These recommendations are
Address for correspondence: PR Boyce, 60 Riverside Close,
Bridge, Canterbury, Kent CT4 5TN, UK.
E-mail: prb.lrt@btinternet.com
lighting. Following such guidance will cer-
tainly do enough to avoid bad lighting, but it
may not be enough to ensure good lighting.6
Strictly, such guidance does not have to be
followed, but often it can be considered to
have legal force because it is taken to repre-
sent best practice. Any designer who ignores
best practice will have a difficult case to make
if faced with litigation.
A common element of both regulations
and a lot of guidance documents are metrics.
A metric is a well-defined measure that the
designer can use to evaluate a design. The
essential characteristics of a metric are that it
should be quantitative, have application cri-
teria attached to it, be capable of being
calculated during design and measured after
installation as well as having some relation to
the desired objective. For many years, the
most common metric for lighting design has
been the illuminance on the task. Indeed,
design criteria in the form of tables of
illuminances recommended for different

ß The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2014 10.1177/1477153514558161

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015

620 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
tasks have been published for almost 100
years,4,5 although the values have oscillated
somewhat over that time depending on the
available technology, the cost of electricity
and peoples’ expectations. Illuminance is a
good example of a metric because it is well
defined;7 it has criterion levels for different
applications; there are several different meth-
ods by which it can be calculated and inex-
pensive meters by which it can be measured.
Its weakness is that it is only approximately
related to how visible a task will be. Task
visibility will actually depend on several other
factors, among them being the visual size,
luminance contrast and colour difference of
the task seen against its immediate back-
ground as well as the luminance to which the
visual system is adapted.6 Nonetheless, illu-
minance is what a lighting installation delivers
and, given a fixed diffuse reflectance, illumin-
ance determines what the luminance of the
surface will be and luminance is what deter-
mines the state of visual adaptation. Further,
it is rare for the designer to have an idea of
exactly what tasks will be done under a given
installation, where they will occur and how
they might change over time. Thus, the best
that can often be done is to provide enough
illuminance to allow the visual system to deal
easily with whatever confronts it. This
explains why illuminance has been such a
long-lived metric.
But there are several other metrics that are
widely used in design.4,5 For daylighting, the
most common metric is daylight factor. This
is the ratio of the illuminance received at a
specified point in an interior to the unob-
structed exterior horizontal illuminance (i.e.
from where a real or simulated photocell has
a complete ‘view’ of the sky). For electric
lighting, there is a metric for illuminance
uniformity over an area, usually expressed as
the ratio of the minimum illuminance to the
average illuminance.
Both these metrics can be calculated and
measured, but there are four others widely
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
used that can be calculated but not measured.
One relates to the ability of a light source to
render colours accurately relative to a refer-
ence light source, the CIE General Colour
Rendering Index (CRI).8 Another indicates
the colour appearance of the light produced
by a light source, the correlated colour
temperature (CCT).7 The third measures the
effectiveness of a light source in converting
electrical power to light, luminous efficacy
measured in lumens/watt. The fourth
attempts to predict the level of discomfort
glare produced by an electric lighting instal-
lation, the unified glare rating (UGR).9 A
search of any light source manufacturer’s
catalogue will reveal how widely the first three
of these metrics are used.
All of these metrics have limitations. The
objective of this paper is to review what these
limitations are and to consider the merits and
potential of some of the alternative metrics
that have been proposed. The order in which
the alternative metrics will be discussed is
determined by how close they are to being
adopted. Some are very close while others are
far over the horizon.
2. Lighting efficiency
The ultimate objective of metrics associated
with lighting efficiency is to limit the amount
of electricity used for lighting without exces-
sively restricting lighting design. There are
several metrics that have been used in
attempts to do this. Some are concerned
simply with components of a lighting instal-
lation such as the light source and luminaire
used. Others focus on limiting power density,
but only one actually attempts to quantify
energy consumption. They are:
Light source luminous efficacy: This metric
quantifies the efficiency with which a light
source converts electrical power to light and is
measured in lumens/watt. If the light source
requires control gear to operate, the power
demand of the control gear should be

included. Setting a minimum allowed lumi-
nous efficacy ensures that only energy effi-
cient light sources are used or developed in
the future.
Luminaire efficiency: Luminaires differ in
their ability to collect and emit the luminous
flux produced by a light source. The metric
that partly quantifies this ability is the light
output ratio (LOR). This is simply the ratio of
the luminous flux emitted from the luminaire
to the luminous flux emitted by the light
source in the luminaire. However, the shape
of the light distribution is very important in
lighting design, but this is not reflected in a
simple LOR measure. Setting a minimum
LOR ensures that only energy efficient lumin-
aires are used, but this can handicap lighting
design.
Lighting efficacy: The efficacy of a lighting
installation is measured as the initial lumi-
nous flux of the entire installation divided by
the power demand of the entire installation
and is measured in lumens/watt. By setting a
minimum value for this metric, inefficient
installations can be eliminated. Allowance
can be made for the use of controls by
lowering the minimum lighting efficacy
required.
Installed power density: The installed power
density of an installation is the power demand
of the whole installation divided by the area
to be lit and is measured in watts/square
metre. By setting a maximum allowed value
for installed power density for different
building types, the number of inefficient
lighting installations should be reduced.
However, such restrictions inevitably limit
lighting design.
Working plane power density: Installed
power density obviously increases as the
illuminance provided by the installation
increases. The working plane power density
avoids this problem by expressing the
installed power density per 100 lx falling on
the working plane. Again, by setting a max-
imum allowed value for working plane power
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
LRT symposium summary 621
density for different building types, the
number of inefficient lighting installations
should be reduced, but it imposes some
restrictions on lighting design and operation.
Lighting energy numeric indicator (LENI):
The LENI is different from all the above
metrics in that it actually quantifies energy
rather than power demand. LENI is defined
as the annual energy consumed by a lighting
installation per square metre of lit area.4,10 It
is measured in units of kWh/m2/year. LENI
can be calculated or measured. For the
calculation, information is required on the
installed power demand for illumination and
for standby purposes, the operating periods
by day and night, and the effectiveness of any
controls relating to occupancy, daylight avail-
ability and maintaining constant illuminance.
To do the calculations, either actual or
default values can be used. LENI can also
be measured with metering designed to spe-
cifically monitor the use of the lighting. If
default values are used in the calculation of
LENI, they should be verified after construc-
tion by metering.
It should be appreciated that these metrics
of lighting efficiency are not mutually exclu-
sive. Indeed, it is very likely that an installa-
tion that meets any LENI limit will have to
use a light source with a high luminous
efficacy and a luminaire with a high LOR
which means these metrics will continue to be
useful. LENI can be applied to any type of
interior lighting installation, task/ambient
lighting as well as uniform lighting. LENI is
included in the European Standard EN 15193
Energy Performance of Buildings.10 It has
been adopted by a number of European
countries, a trend that seems likely to con-
tinue. It should also be appreciated that
LENI and all the other metrics discussed
above have nothing to say about the visual
quality of the lighting provided. A good
lighting installation has to enable people to
see what needs to be seen, in comfort, as well
as being energy efficient.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
622 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
3. Daylighting
Unlike the situation for the efficiency of
electric lighting, the metrics associated with
daylighting can have three objectives. One is
to characterise what constitutes good day-
lighting. Another is to provide an estimate of
the effect of daylight on the energy consump-
tion of the building. Yet another is to indicate
the likelihood of visual or thermal discomfort
occurring. The metric most commonly used to
assess daylighting is the daylight factor. This
is the ratio of the illuminance received at a
given point on the horizontal working plane
in an interior to the unobstructed exterior
horizontal illuminance, usually expressed as a
percentage. Daylight factor assumes a CIE
overcast sky which is rotationally symmetric
about the vertical axis and for which the
luminance at the zenith is three times greater
than the luminance at the horizon. Daylight
factor does not take direct sunlight into
account, although it does deal with externally
and internally reflected light as well as light
from the sky. The extent to which daylight
factor meets the three objectives of a day-
lighting metric is very limited.11 This is
because it is a relative static measure that is
determined by the design and setting of the
building and that ignores the contribution of
sunlight. However, daylight is dynamic in that
it varies over the hour, day and year depend-
ing on the climate and, even for the same
climate, varies with the orientation of the
building. In terms of the three objectives,
daylight factor does little to identify good
daylighting, partly because what constitutes
good daylighting is ill-defined, but mainly
because it ignores the effect of sunlight.
Ignoring sunlight also means any attempt to
use it to predict the extent to which visual or
thermal discomfort will occur is futile. As for
the energy consumption of a building, the fact
that daylight factor is a relative measure that
ignores changes in sky type throughout the
year means its ability to predict the
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
illuminances delivered is limited, and hence
daylight’s interaction with electric lighting
control systems is uncertain. Daylight factor
is best considered as a rule of thumb. This is
most apparent in the very limited amount of
quantitative advice given about daylighting
which usually consists of little more than
some minimum average daylight factors.4
Such advice tends to be interpreted as the
higher is the average daylight factor the better
is the lighting, Sadly, this is not true. If it was,
we should all be living in greenhouses. The
reason why a higher daylight factor is not a
recipe for better lighting is that the windows
or rooflights used to deliver daylight can also
deliver solar heat gain causing thermal dis-
comfort and glare causing visual discomfort.
Thus, daylighting design is a matter of
balancing positive and negative effects.
Daylight factor is too simple a metric to do
this. Despite this, daylight factor has been
used in some accreditation schemes with some
unintended consequences
Despite its limitations, in the hands of an
experienced designer daylight factor can be a
useful rule of thumb to make design deci-
sions,12 but are there any alternative metrics
for daylighting? The answer to this question is
positive, but it requires a very different
approach. This approach is known as cli-
mate-based daylight modeling (CBDM).11
The key to this approach is the existence of
data files of the irradiances or illuminances
provided by the sky and sun for a given
location over a whole year. Such climate
records are now available for many locations
throughout the world. From such records, it
is possible to calculate the illuminances that
will be produced at a given point in a space
depending on the prevailing climate, the
window or skylight arrangement, and the
orientation of the building, every hour, for a
whole year. These illuminances are absolute
measures and can be calculated for an
assumed horizontal working plane at desk
height or on the ceiling, or even on a vertical

plane so that the illuminance at the eye can be
calculated. These measures give a better
indication than daylight factor of how sky-
light and sunlight will be distributed across a
space, where and how often visual discomfort
caused by glare is likely to occur, and what
the stimulus to any ceiling-mounted sensors
for an electric lighting or blind control system
will be. This is clearly a much richer picture of
how a daylighting installation will perform
than is possible with daylight factor alone.
There are two metrics associated with
CBDM that use the calculated illuminances.
One is the useful daylight illuminance (UDI).
Based on experience, a four-part illuminance
scale has been developed. When daylight
delivers less than 100 lx at a point, it is largely
ignored. When daylight delivers more than
3000 lx, blinds are likely to drawn down so
such high illuminances are not useful. The
intermediate range is subdivided into two
parts. From 100 lx to 300 lx, daylight will be
noticed but will usually be considered as
supplementary to electric lighting. From
300 lx to 3000 lx, daylight will be considered
primary and, given a responsive control
system, electric lighting is likely to be
dimmed or turned off. This means that only
illuminances in the range 100 lx to 3000 lx are
useful. By examining the distribution of
illuminances delivered over a space, over a
year, it is possible to estimate the extent to
which the design delivers useful daylight and
hence the energy consequences. It is import-
ant to appreciate that UDI does not really
deal with discomfort glare apart from limiting
the illuminances received to less than 3000 lx.
There are more comprehensive methods for
dealing with discomfort glare from windows,
and those should be used to supplement
CBDM.13
The other metric associated with CBDM is
called daylight autonomy (DA). This is a
measure of daylight availability. DA is
defined as the percentage of the occupied
time over the year when a given position in a
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
LRT symposium summary 623
space will have the recommended illuminance
delivered by daylight.14 By making this cal-
culation for multiple positions, a contour
defining an area over which a specific min-
imum DA occurs can be developed. The
larger the area enclosed by the contour, the
more likely it is that the space will be
considered to be daylit. DA is useful as a
design tool for those who want to make the
most use of daylight, but it has no relevance
for assessing visual discomfort caused by
glare and limited value for estimating the
energy consequences of daylighting.
Any metrics using CBDM require com-
puter simulations, and these can be expensive
to create depending on the complexity of the
building. This may be the reason why, despite
their advantages, UDI and DA have not
replaced daylight factor as the basis of day-
lighting design. The problem is that designers
are unwilling to move on from daylight factor
until software exists that make UDI or DA
easy to use, and software companies are
unwilling to develop the necessary software
until there is evidence of a demand. But this
logjam may be about to break. The Priority
Schools Building Program in the UK has
recently specified that proposed daylighting
designs for schools will be assessed on the
basis of UDI thereby forcing people who wish
to gain access to the program to use UDI, a
requirement that will generate the demand
necessary to stimulate the software compa-
nies. This appears to be happening – during
the drafting of this paper two software
companies announced the addition of
CBDM to their building modeling tools.
If the use of UDI leads to schools that
show reduced energy consumption and less
overheating in summer than those designed
using daylight factor, the future for CBDM is
bright. If it does not, then daylight factor and
other rules of thumb are likely to prevail. In
either case, there is still much to learn about
metrics for daylighting. While moving from
only considering an overcast sky through
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
624 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
daylight factor to assessing the real climate by
CBDM is a step forward, until what visual
conditions constitute good daylighting are
defined it will be difficult to develop suitable
metrics.
4. Colour
Colour is a perception. This means that the
colour of a surface is not solely a function of
the light spectrum incident on it and the
spectral reflectance of the surface. While these
factors are undoubtedly important, the colour
perceived will also depend on its immediate
surroundings and the capabilities of the
observer’s visual system.15 Despite this, the
metrics most commonly used to characterise
colour utilise only the spectrum of the inci-
dent light and the spectral reflectance in their
calculation. There are two common metrics
used; the CCT and the CIE General CRI.
4.1. Correlated colour temperature
The CCT is used as a metric to describe the
colour appearance of the light emitted by a
light source. CCT is based on the fact that the
spectral emission of a black body is defined
by Planck’s radiation law and hence is a
function of its temperature only. This pro-
duces a curved line on the CIE 1931 chroma-
ticity diagram, called the Plankian locus or
black body line.6 When the chromaticity
coordinates of a light source lie directly on
the Planckian locus, the colour appearance of
that light source is expressed by the colour
temperature, i.e. the temperature of the black
body that has the same chromaticity coord-
inates. For light sources that have chromati-
city coordinates close to the Planckian locus
but not on it, their colour appearances are
quantified in CCT, i.e. the temperature of an
iso-temperature line that is closest to the
actual chromaticity coordinates of the light
source. The temperatures are usually given in
Kelvin (K).
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
CCT is a very convenient and easily
understandable metric of light source colour
appearance, applicable to nominally white
light sources. As a rough guide, such light
sources have CCTs ranging from 2700 K to
17,000 K. A 2700 K light source, such as an
incandescent lamp, will have a yellowish
colour appearance and be described as
‘warm’, while a 17,000 K light source, such
as some types of fluorescent lamp, will have a
bluish appearance and be described as ‘cool’.
The CCTs of the most commonly used light
sources lie in the range 2700–5000 K. It is
worth noting that two light sources with the
same CCT can have different colour appear-
ances. This is because the two light sources
can lie at different points along the specific
iso-temperature line and hence have different
chromaticity coordinates. It is also important
to be aware that light sources with the same
CCT can have different light spectra so how
well they render surface colours can be
different.
Another aspect of CCT that requires
attention is how far the chromaticity coord-
inates of a light source can be away from the
Plankian locus if the light emitted is to be
considered white. A metric, called Duv, is the
distance between the chromaticity coordin-
ates of the light source and the nearest point
on the Planckian locus, measured on the CIE
1976 UCS diagram. The maximum allowed
Duv values for white light are 0.006, posi-
tive values being for chromaticity coordinates
above, and negative for below, the Planckian
locus.16 Both CCT and Duv are necessary to
define the colour appearance of a light source.
While setting a limit to how far away from
the Planckian locus the chromaticity coord-
inates of a light source can be while still
claiming to produce white light is necessary,
there may still be some work to do in this
area. This is because there is some evidence
that below 4000 K, the chromaticity coordin-
ates considered to represent white light depart
from the Planckian locus.17 This somewhat

undermines the use of the Plankian locus as
the basis of the light source colour appear-
ance and suggests the need for a different
function.
4.2. CIE General Colour Rendering Index
The CIE General CRI measures how well a
given light source renders a set of standard
test colours relative to their rendering under a
reference light source of the same CCT as the
light source of interest.8 The reference light
source used is an incandescent light source for
light sources with a CCT of 5000 K and less
and some form of daylight for light sources
with a CCT above 5000 K. The actual calcu-
lation involves obtaining the positions of a
surface colour in the CIE 1964, U*, V*, W*
colour space under the reference light source
and under the light source of interest after
allowing for any chromatic adaptation by a
von Kries transform. The difference between
the two positions is then expressed on a scale
that gives perfect agreement between the two
positions a value of 100. The CIE has 14
standard test colours. The first eight form a
set of pastel colours arranged around the hue
circle. Test colours 9–14 represent colours of
special significance, such as more saturated
primary colours, skin tones and vegetation.
The result of the calculation for any single test
colour is called the CIE Special CRI, for that
test colour. The average of the Special CRIs
for the first eight test colours is called the CIE
General CRI. It is this latter index that is
usually presented in light source manufac-
turers’ catalogues.
The CIE General CRI has its limitations.18
First, it should be appreciated that just
because two light sources have the same
General CRI, it does not mean that they
render colours the same way. The General
CRI is an average, and there are many
combinations of Special CRI values that can
give the same average. Even when all the
Special CRI values for two light sources are
the same, their colour rendering may still be
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
LRT symposium summary 625
different because the differences that define
the Special CRI values only take the magni-
tude of the difference into account, not the
direction. Second, different light sources are
being compared with different reference light
sources. This makes the meaning of compari-
sons between different light sources uncertain.
Third, chromatic adaptation is dealt with by
using the von Kries transform which has been
found to be inadequate.19 Fourth, none of the
test colours used in the calculation of General
CRI are saturated. Fifth, the CIE test samples
do not sample wavelength space uniformly,
i.e. some areas will be underrepresented.20
The non-uniform spectral sampling of wave-
length space enables manufacturers to take
advantage of these differences to game their
spectra, i.e. to artificially inflate the General
CRI value.20 Sixth, there has to be some
doubt about whether the reference light
sources, either incandescent or daylight, rep-
resent perfect colour rendering.
4.3. New colour metrics
While the CIE General CRI remains the
most widely used metric for describing the
ability of a light source to render colours,
the arrival on the market of solid state light
sources producing white light from a com-
bination of three or more narrow band LEDs
has caused some consternation. The problem
is that such solid state light sources produce
values of CIE General CRI that do not match
how people evaluate their colour rendering.21
The result has been the same as occurred
when fluorescent lamps first became wide-
spread, a growth of interest in colour metrics.
The outcome of this interest has been an
outburst of new metrics. These can be divided
into two types.
The first type is focused on measuring
colour fidelity. To measure colour fidelity, it
is essential to have a reference illuminant. The
fidelity in question then becomes how well the
light source in question renders colours rela-
tive to how the reference illuminant does. This
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
626 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
is essentially what the CIE General CRI does
so the proposed changes seek to address the
limitations discussed above. The Colour
Quality Scale (CQS) method22 uses the same
reference light sources as the CIE CRI. Where
it differs is in having 15 test colours, most of
them being saturated, using the CIELAB
colour space, using a better transform to
allow for colour adaptation, using the latest
colour difference formulation and taking the
root mean square of the differences between
the chromaticity coordinates of each test
colour under the test and the reference light
sources. The result is a single number scaled
between 0 and 100. The CQS produces
general CQS indices for fluorescent lamps
that are very similar to those produced by the
CIE General CRI but produces rather differ-
ent values for white, narrow band LED light
sources.
Two other refinements of colour fidelity
metrics have been suggested.23 One, CRI2012,
suggests the use of a set of 17 theoretical
spectral reflectance curves evenly spaced
across the visible wavelength range as a set
of test colours. The other is to adjust the
spectrum of the reference illuminant so that
the discontinuity at a CCT of 5000 K is
avoided. These proposals are now being
considered in CIE Technical Committee 1–90.
The second type of colour metric is called a
colour preference metric. For colour prefer-
ence metrics, no reference illuminant is
needed. Probably the most advanced of
these metrics is the colour gamut. The
colour gamut is obtained by calculating the
chromaticity coordinates of a set of test
colours under the light source of interest
and plotting them on a plane in a uniform
colour space. When the plotted positions are
joined together, a colour gamut is formed.
Figure 1 shows the colour gamuts for a
number of light sources derived from the
same eight CIE test colours used to calculate
the CIE General CRI. A colour gamut
requires the designer to appreciate the
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
implications of the shape and position of the
gamut. This requirement for thought has led
to suggestions that the colour gamut be
reduced to a single number by calculating
the area enclosed by the gamut as a metric of
colour rendering. Gamut area suffers from
the defects of any single number index, in that
light sources with the same gamut area can
render colours differently. It is even possible
to introduce a reference light source and then
to express the gamut area relative to an ideal
light source. The gamut area scale suggested
by Davis and Ohno22 relates the gamut area
created by calculating the positions of the 15
test colours used in the CQS on the a*, b*
plane of the CIELAB colour space to the area
enclosed by the same test colours illuminated
by the CIE Standard Illuminant D65 repre-
senting daylight. In this metric, differences
that reduce the saturation of a test colour are
penalised because it has been found that
people prefer colours to be more rather than
less saturated.24,25
Another approach to exploring the colour
properties of light sources involves the use of
the colour appearance models. Pointer26 used
the Hunt27 model to generate 15 different
measures relating to hue, chroma and light-
ness. Szabo et al.28 used the CIECAM02
model29 to generate metrics relating to the
harmony of colour pairs and triads. However,
it seems perverse to use a very sophisticated
model of colour appearance to generate a
comprehensive picture of how a light source
will influence surface colours only to throw
almost all of that information away by
reducing the description to a single number
metric.
By now, it should be apparent that quan-
tifying colour is complicated and using simple
metrics requires some recognition that infor-
mation has been lost. Rea and Freyssinier30
have suggested that at least two metrics are
required to give a meaningful picture of the
colour rendering of any light source, one
colour fidelity metric and one gamut
 LRT symposium summary 627

0.58

0.56

0.54

0.52

v’
0.50

0.48

= Spectrum Locus
0.46 = Planckian Locus
= Metal Halide
= High Pressure Sodium
0.44 = Fluorescent
= Incandescent
= Daylight

0.42

0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34
u’

Figure 1 The colour gamuts of high-pressure sodium, incandescent, fluorescent and metal halide light sources, and
for the CIE Standard Illuminant D65 simulating daylight, all plotted on the CIE 1976 Uniform Chromaticity Space (UCS)
diagram. The dashed curve is the Planckian locus

area-based metric. This view is supported by
the results of Smet et al.31 and Dangol et al.32
Others have pointed out the possibility of
developing metrics based on colour differ-
ences,33 colour harmony,28 feelings of con-
trast34 and memory colours,35 i.e. the colours
of objects where colour carries a meaning
such as fruit. Yet others have developed
detailed models of colour appearance.36 The
relative merits of these colour preference
metrics are being considered by CIE
Technical Committee 1–91.
From the above, it should be clear that
the situation with regard to colour metrics is
an excess of choice. There is no doubt that
the CIE General CRI needs to be modified
or replaced but exactly which of the many
possible metrics should be adopted remains
to be determined. One thing that is appar-
ent is that more than one metric is needed
to give a clear picture of the ability of a
light source to render colours, at least one
for fidelity and one for preference. No
doubt the CIE will eventually make a
choice between the competing metrics, but
before that can happen, it will be necessary
to determine if there are serious differences
between them or if the arguments between
their proponents are more a matter of
theology than reality.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015

628 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
5. Discomfort glare
The level of discomfort glare produced by a
lighting installation is usually predicted by
calculating the UGR.9 UGR calculations
involve the luminance and size of the glare
source, the luminance of the background
against which it is seen and the position of
the glare source relative to the line of sight.
The higher is the luminance of the glare
source and the larger its size, the greater will
be the level of discomfort glare. Conversely,
the higher the luminance of the background
and the further the glare source is from the
line of sight, the lower will be the level of
discomfort glare. UGR is the result of many
years of study by the CIE and represents the
state of the art in glare prediction methods.
However, there is doubt about how well it
deals with LED luminaires which contain
multiple small points of high luminous inten-
sity. At the moment, there are no compre-
hensive proposals for another metric to
replace UGR. This is probably because,
despite all the research, there remains much
uncertainty about the phenomenon.37
6. Light distribution
For many years, the most widely used metric
in the design of lighting installations has been
the average illuminance on the horizontal
working plane.4,5 The horizontal working
plane is usually assumed to be at desk
height and to cover the whole occupied
space. The average illuminance given in
most lighting recommendations is backed up
by an illuminance uniformity metric in the
form of the ratio of minimum to average
illuminance. Together, these two metrics tend
to produce a uniform distribution of light
across a space which means that work can be
positioned anywhere in the space. There have
been attempts to move attention away from
the horizontal working plane by claiming that
illuminance recommendations apply to the
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
task plane but without changes to the design
process so that designers know where the
tasks will be and what type of lighting they
require these changes seem unlikely to be
effective. The fact is the design of lighting for
workplaces is often an exercise in prediction
based on assumptions. Fortunately, providing
the recommended average illuminance uni-
formly across a horizontal plane in a room
with high reflectance walls and ceiling will
usually provide adequate if indifferent light-
ing for many applications, provided care is
taken to avoid glare and to have a modicum
of upward light.38 This is probably why the
horizontal plane has survived as the focus of
routine lighting practice despite many years of
exhortation for its abolition by experienced
designers seeking to make lighting more
interesting.
Now, however, a much more radical
approach to light distribution is being sug-
gested. This starts by undermining the funda-
mental purpose claimed as the basis for
illuminance recommendations, to ensure ade-
quate visibility. Cuttle39 argues that while
task visibility was a reasonable basis for
lighting recommendations when difficult
tasks were common, over the last 30 years
many visually difficult tasks, e.g. reading a
fifth carbon copy, have disappeared and,
where they do occur, technology often pro-
vides a better way of either doing the task or
making it more visible than simply increasing
the illuminance. Further, more and more
information is being viewed on self-luminous
devices such as smart phones and computer
screens which higher illuminances make more
difficult to see. He concludes that current
lighting recommendations based on providing
enough light to ensure task visibility on a
horizontal working plane cannot be justified.
As a replacement, he suggests the basis of
lighting recommendation should be changed
to providing for a criterion he calls ‘Perceived
adequacy of illumination’, which simply
means that the space does not appear underlit

or gloomy. The metric he associates with this
perception is mean room surface exitance,
where exitance is the product of the luminous
flux falling on a surface and the reflectance of
that surface. This means that mean room
surface exitance is the ambient density of
diffusely interreflected luminous flux
(excluding direct light from the luminaires)
within the volume of an enclosed space, in
lm/m2. Adopting mean room surface exitance
as a basis for lighting recommendations
would require some basic rethinking of gen-
eral lighting practice, because light distribu-
tions that illuminate the walls and ceiling then
become much more effective than those that
concentrate their output onto the relatively
low-reflectance horizontal working plane.39
Cuttle40 has recently gone further by sug-
gesting an additional metric called the target/
ambient illumination ratio that is used to give
emphasis to specified objects within the space.
Together, mean room surface exitance and
target/ambient illumination ratio can be used
to form a design procedure for first lighting
the space and then any significant objects in
it. This procedure is all-encompassing in that
it allows both art galleries and speculative
office space to be designed by the same
process, although the former will result in
very different lighting than the latter.
Interestingly, uniform illumination of a hori-
zontal working plane can occur, but now it
will be the result of a considered opinion
rather than unthinking obedience to a sched-
ule of illuminance recommendations.
At the moment, the worth of mean room
surface exitance and target/ambient illumin-
ation ratio as metrics for determining desir-
able light distributions are matters of belief
rather than proof. What is required is some
experimental evidence that mean room sur-
face exitance is related to peoples’ perception
of the amount of light in a space and that
that, in turn, is more closely linked to their
satisfaction with the lighting than illuminance
on the horizontal working plane. It is to be
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
LRT symposium summary 629
expected that recommended mean room sur-
face exitance levels to satisfy the perceived
adequacy of illumination criterion will vary
according to people’s expectations for the
location, so that the level for a doctor’s
surgery will be higher than that for the
waiting room.
For task/ambient illumination ratio, there
are questions about what ratio is required to
give different levels of emphasis. There is also
a question about the integration with daylight
from windows. The mean room surface
exitance and task/ambient illumination ratio
metrics have both been developed for electric
lighting only. Daylight from windows inevit-
ably produces a very non-uniform light
distribution. How this might distort or con-
strain the use of these metrics is something
that needs to be addressed. If all these
questions can be answered positively, then it
should be possible to develop lighting criteria
based on these metrics and, hence, reorient
lighting recommendations away from lighting
a task on the horizontal working plane
towards the lighting of the space and the
objects in it. The result should be better
lighting.
7. Light spectra
At first, it may seem odd to include light
spectra in a review of lighting metrics. After
all, the spectral power distribution of a light
source is measured using well-established
procedures and quantified in Système
Internationale (SI) units. The reason for
including it is simply that to express the
effect of a spectral power distribution on
human vision, the CIE spectral luminous
efficiency function for photopic vision, the
V() function, is used. The V() function was
established in 1924 and, although there are
other luminous efficiency functions for pho-
topic conditions that are recognised by the
CIE,41,42 none have been widely used. Every
luminous flux, luminous intensity,
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
630 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
illuminance and luminance found in lighting
recommendations and manufacturer’s cata-
logues is based on the V() function. Yet, the
V() function has its limitations.6 Specifically,
the V() function represents the brightness
response of the central 28 of the retina, i.e. the
fovea, in photopic conditions. In 1924, this
was reasonable because the fovea is physio-
logically designed for the discrimination of
detail and the main purpose of lighting in
1924 was to make detail easier to see when
daylight was limited. But since 1924, know-
ledge of how the visual system operates has
grown, and it has become apparent that the
five different photoreceptors in the retina and
the different signal channels to the brain
combine in different ways to produce differ-
ent spectral sensitivities for different types of
performance and perception. This under-
standing has been largely ignored by the
world of lighting which is a pity because the
V() function is based on the response of only
two photoreceptor types, the medium and
long wavelength-sensitive photoreceptors,
and ignores the colour channels of the visual
system entirely. This explains why there are
well-known spectral effects associated with
the detection of stimuli off-axis,43 and with
brightness perception in mesopic condi-
tions.44 These spectral effects are such that
to achieve the same level of performance or
perception, light sources with different spec-
tra have to produce different light levels.
Given that these spectral effects are well
known, it should be possible to incorporate
them into lighting recommendations, but this
is rarely done. Rea45 has proposed a system
that will allow these spectral effects to be
taken into account in the design process. The
fundamental idea is to develop a series of
what are called benefit metrics to be used in
lighting recommendations. These benefit met-
rics require the designer to first identify the
objectives of the lighting. For example, when
lighting a street at night, an important
objective is to generate a perception of
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
safety for pedestrians, and this is known to
be related to their perception of brightness.
Figure 2 shows the proposed luminous effi-
ciency functions for brightness perception at
three different photopic illuminances. By
applying one of these to the spectral power
distribution of a light source instead of the
V() function, light sources for the lighting of
streets where pedestrians are likely to be
found can be compared on the basis of a
meaningful perception.
It is important to appreciate that lighting
can often have multiple objectives. For exam-
ple, when driving at night drivers are using
different parts of their visual system for
different purposes. For controlling the pos-
ition of the vehicle and for detecting activity
at the edge of the road, peripheral vision is
important, but for reading road signs and
examining the movements of other vehicles,
foveal vision is relevant. This means the
designer has to check the effectiveness of a
light source using a number of different
luminous efficiency functions before deciding
on which one to use. It may even be necessary
to use different light sources for different
objectives such as one that is efficient for
peripheral vision for lighting the road and one
that is efficient for foveal vision for lighting
road signs. Whatever the outcome the concept
of benefit metrics is valuable because it places
responsibility on the designer to identify what
the lighting is supposed to achieve, something
that requires much more thought than simply
following a table of illuminances based on the
V() function.
Rea46 has now taken this process a step
further. His argument is that in order to
recognise the complexity of the visual sys-
tem’s operations, it is necessary to separate
the concepts of light and lighting. At the
moment, light is a fundamental SI quantity,
like mass, time and length. However, it is an
anomaly in the SI system because it is the only
quantity that depends on the response of
humans. Other human senses, such as
 LRT symposium summary 631

1.0

0.8

Efficiency
0.6
VB3(λ): above 25 lx
0.4

0.2

0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Wavelength (nm)

1.0

Efficiency 0.8

0.6
VB2(λ): between 1 and 25 lx
0.4

0.2

0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Wavelength (nm)

1.0

0.8
Efficiency

0.6
V’(λ): below 1 lx
0.4

0.2

0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 2 Proposed luminous efficiency functions for brightness over different photopic illuminance ranges.45 The
luminous efficiency functions vary because different photoreceptors are dominant in different ranges

hearing, are not blessed with their own SI
quantity. Logically, it could be argued that
light should not be included in the SI system.
Only optical radiation measured in watts
should be included. Optical radiation could
be converted into light by applying the
appropriate luminous efficiency function for
a given application. Maybe, if we were
starting from scratch that would be the
approach adopted, but we are not starting
from scratch. The world has become accus-
tomed to having a single definition of light
that can be used to compare products any-
where in the world. But, as discussed above,
the V() function is just one among several
possible luminous efficiency functions
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015

632 PR Boyce and KAG Smet

depending on what aspect of visual system
performance or perception is of interest.
Therefore, what Rea46 suggests is replacing
the V() function with something called the
universal luminous efficiency function (U().
Figure 3 shows the proposed universal lumi-
nous efficiency function and the luminous
efficiency functions of all five photoreceptors
in the human retina. It is clear that the
luminous efficiency functions of all five
photoreceptors lie within the boundary of
the universal lumen. Light is then defined as
the optical radiation weighted by the univer-
sal luminous efficiency function. Light
defined in this way can be used to compare
products across the world but not to design
lighting. Lighting design requires the use of
different luminous efficiency functions as
appropriate for different design objectives as
discussed above.
This is a revolutionary proposal, but it
does recognise the complexity of the human
visual system. It remains to be seen how far
the lighting profession will be willing to move
in this direction.
8. Implications
From the above, it should be clear that there
is no shortage of proposed new metrics for
many different aspects of lighting. Three
questions now need to be addressed. What is
necessary for these metrics to be adopted?
What is the likelihood of any of these metrics

1.0
V(λ)
0.9 U(λ)

0.8

2° L-cones
0.7
2° M-cones
0.6
Efficiency

2° S-cones
0.5 10° S-cones

0.4 Rods

ipRGCs
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 3 The universal luminous efficiency function U(), the CIE photopic luminous efficiency function V() and the
luminous efficiency functions of the long wavelength-sensitive photoreceptors (L-cones), the medium wavelength-
sensitive photoreceptors (M-cones), two short wavelength-sensitive photoreceptors (S-cones), the rod photoreceptors
and the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglions cells (ipRGCs) in the retina.46 There are two luminous efficiency
functions for the short wavelength-sensitive photoreceptors (S-cones) because of the effect of the macula on the
S-cones at 28 eccentricity

Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015


being adopted? If they are adopted, will the
end result be better lighting?
The answer to the first question can take
two forms, technical and emotional. The
technical answers express the features that a
metric needs to have to be adopted. There are
six such features. First, the proposed metric
has to address a recognised problem, either a
lighting problem or a policy issue related to
lighting. Second, the metric has to be shown
to be effective in solving the problem. Third,
the metric has to be easily understood.
Fourth, the metric should make a significant
difference to design decisions. Fifth, the
metric has to be simple to implement in
design and in construction. Sixth, there
should be criteria available to identify appro-
priate values of the metric.
The emotional answers reflect the fact that
human inertia makes existing metrics difficult
to change or replace. Simply meeting all the
technical requirements listed above may not
be enough to get a new metric adopted. What
is required to ensure success are advocates,
allies and perseverance. Advocates are
required to raise awareness of the proposed
metric and to enthuse people about it. Allies
are required because a groundswell of support
for a metric will convince authoritative bodies
to give it some consideration. Perseverance is
necessary because most metrics have a defen-
sive screen of vested interests around them.
A light source manufacturer who has
designed a product range around existing
colour metrics will not take kindly to a new
metric particularly if it means some existing
products will be downgraded. Similarly, light-
ing consultants who are familiar with daylight
factor may not view having to learn a whole
new method of daylight evaluation with
much enthusiasm. And bodies that issue
authoritative guidance may have difficulty
changing the basis of that guidance if it means
admitting that they have been wrong for
many years – or, at least, not as ‘right’ as they
might wish.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
LRT symposium summary 633
So, what is the likelihood of the metrics
discussed above being adopted? The answer
to this question has to be qualified by who is
likely to be doing the adopting. Metrics linked
to legislation or to global trade need to be
adopted by recognised and authoritative
bodies. Metrics linked to design processes
can be adopted by individual designers.
LENI is a metric linked to legislation. It is
already contained in European Standard
EN 1519310 and is also included in the draft
revision of this standard so widespread adop-
tion is guaranteed. Some form of replacement
for the CIE General CRI also looks likely,
although exactly which metric or metrics will
be adopted by the CIE is uncertain. A
replacement for CCT is unlikely because the
deviation of white light from the Planckian
locus below about 4000 K is not yet widely
recognised as a problem. As for introducing
the universal luminous efficiency function,
this would require changing the SI, an act that
calls for international cooperation and agree-
ment, a process that can take many years if it
happens at all.
Adopting CBDM as the basis of daylight-
ing design is currently problematic. The
limitations of daylight factor are widely
acknowledged, but CBDM and its associated
metrics have to be shown to produce better
daylighting designs before the complexity it
introduces can be justified. The process of
evaluating CBDM in practice is just begin-
ning. However, following its inclusion as a
mandatory requirement in the Priority
Schools Building Program, its wider adoption
does seem more likely.
As for mean room surface exitance and
target/ambient illumination ratio, these met-
rics form a coherent process for determining
light distribution, but it is not yet evident that
this process leads to more satisfactory lighting
installations, nor what criterion levels are
appropriate for each metric. Research is
underway to investigate the merits of these
metrics and their use in the design process.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
634 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
If this research comes to a positive conclu-
sion, mean room surface exitance and target/
ambient illumination ratio should become
more widely used, particularly if lighting
practitioners recognise them as a route to
enhanced lighting quality for general lighting
practice.
The concept of benefit metrics based on the
spectral sensitivities of different combinations
of photoreceptors and visual channels is
certainly attractive but requires that much
more attention be given to identifying the
objectives of the lighting rather than its
photometric characteristics. Benefit metrics
could be adopted at different times for
different applications. Outdoor lighting
looks likely to be the first application for
which the benefit metrics approach might be
adopted. In general, the neuroscience behind
benefit metrics is well established. What is
missing is experience in trying to apply them
in the real world. Until this experience is
gained, it is unlikely that professional organ-
isations will be willing to abandon their
reliance on recommended illuminances.
Finally, it is worth considering if adopting
any of these metrics will lead to better lighting.
LENI will only deliver better lighting in the
sense of encouraging more energy efficient
lighting. Changes in the colour metrics are
important for light source manufacturers but
will probably have little effect on the percep-
tion of lighting by the general public. The
public can certainly tell the difference between
the extremes of colour rendering but fine
differences elude them. CBDM is another
matter. By exposing window or skylight
designs that can cause visual or thermal
discomfort and providing better estimates of
energy consumption, CBDM should deliver
better lighting. Having said that, it is the mean
room surface exitance and target/ambient
illumination ratio process for light distribu-
tion that has the most potential to deliver
better lighting. The same may be true of the
light spectra metrics proposed by Rea but at
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
the moment, the outcome of applying these
metrics to real world applications is unclear.
In fact, a combination of the light distribution
metrics of Cuttle and the light spectra metrics
of Rea probably offer the best prospect for a
quantum leap in lighting quality. But to make
that leap, it will first be necessary for authori-
tative bodies to admit the limitations of
current metrics and the standards that use
them. This is because standards have a
stranglehold on general lighting practice
through the threat of litigation against those
who fail to conform. This threat only loses its
power if the limitations of the standards are
widely recognised and the benefits of the
alternative metrics are promoted. This will
only happen if professional organisations
show some leadership by developing lighting
recommendations based on the new metrics
and influential individuals and companies
advocate their adoption, by word and deed.
In many ways, these metrics represent an
opportunity for individuals, companies and
organisations to gain professional credibility
through demonstrating an expertise founded
on a deeper understanding of their subject
than is possible from simply following a table
of recommended illuminances, an opportunity
that should not be missed.
Funding
This paper received no specific grant from
any funding agency in the public, commercial
or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the presentations given
at the Better Metrics for Better Lighting
symposium held at University College
London on the 15 July 2014. It is a pleasure
to acknowledge the contributions of Lou
Bedocs, Kit Cuttle, John Mardaljevic, Peter
Raynham, Mark Rea and Kevin Smet to the

symposium. All have contributed to the
thoughts that lie behind this paper.
References
1 Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendment)
Regulations, Norwich, UK: The Stationery
Office, 1999.
2 Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals)
Regulations, Norwich, UK: The Stationery
Office, 1996.
3 Building Regulations Part L (Conservation of
Fuel and Power), Planning Portal: UK
Department for Communities and Local
Government, 2010.
4 Society of Light and Lighting. The SLL Code
for Lighting. London: CIBSE, 2012.
5 The Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America. The Lighting Handbook.
10th Edition. New York: IESNA, 2011.
6 Boyce PR. Human Factors in Lighting.
3rd Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.
7 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
International Lighting Vocabulary. CIE
Standard S 017/E 2011. Vienna: CIE, 2011.
8 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
Method of Measuring and Specifying Colour
Rendering Properties of Light Sources. CIE
Publication 13.3. Vienna: CIE, 1995.
9 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. CIE
Collection on Glare. CIE Publication 146-2002.
Vienna: CIE, 2002.
10 British Standards Institution. BS EN 15193:
2007 Energy Performance of Buildings. Energy
Requirements for Lighting. London: BSI, 2007.
11 Mardaljevic J, Heschong L, Lee E. Daylight
metrics and energy savings. Lighting Research
and Technology 2009; 41: 261–283.
12 Reinhart CF, LoVerso VRM. A rules of thumb-
based design sequence for diffuse daylight.
Lighting Research and Technology 2010; 42: 7–31.
13 Wienold J, Christoffersen J. Evaluation meth-
ods and development of a new glare prediction
model for daylight environments with the use
of CCD cameras. Energy and Buildings 2006;
38: 742–757.
14 Reinhart C. Daylighting Handbook 1.
Cambridge, MA: Christoph Reinhart, 2014.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
LRT symposium summary 635
15 Purves D, Beau-Lotto R. Why We See What
We Do. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates,
2003.
16 American National Standards Institute. ANSI
Standard for Electric Lamps: Specifications for
the Chromaticity of Solid State Lighting
Products. ANSI C78.377. Rosslyn VA:
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, 2008.
17 Rea MS, Freyssinier JP. White lighting for
residential applications. Lighting Research and
Technology 2013; 45: 331–344.
18 Guo X, Houser KW. A review of colour
rendering indices and their applications to
commercial light sources. Lighting Research
and Technology 2004; 36: 183–199.
19 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
A Review of Chromatic Adaptation Models.
CIE Publication 160:2004. Vienna: CIE, 2004.
20 Smet KAG, Schanda J, Whitehead L, Luo RM.
CRI2012: A proposal for updating the CIE
Colour Rendering Index. Lighting Research and
Technology 2013; 45: 689–709.
21 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
Colour Rendering of White LED Light
Sources. CIE Publication 177:2007. Vienna:
CIE, 2007.
22 Davis W, Ohno Y. Colour quality scale.
Optical Engineering 2010; 49: 033602.
23 Smet KAG, Schanda J, Whitehead L, Luo MR.
CIE2012: A proposal for updating the CIE
Colour Rendering Index. Lighting Research and
Technology 2013; 45: 689–709.
24 Judd DB. A flattery index for artificial illumin-
ants. Illuminating Engineering 1967; 62: 593–598.
25 Thornton WA. Color-discrimination index.
Journal of the Optical Society of America 1972;
62: 191–194.
26 Pointer MR. Measuring colour rendering –
A new approach. Lighting Research and
Technology 1986; 18: 175–184.
27 Hunt RWG. A model of color vision for
predicting color appearance. Color Research
and Application 1982; 7: 95–112.
28 Szabo F, Bodrogi P, Schanda J. A colour
harmony rendering index based on predictions
of colour harmony impression. Lighting
Research and Technology 2009; 41: 165–182.
29 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
A Colour Appearance Model for Colour
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
636 PR Boyce and KAG Smet
Management Systems: CIECAM02. CIE
Publication 159:2004. Vienna: CIE, 2004.
30 Rea MS, Freyssinier JP. Color rendering:
Beyond pride and prejudice. Color Research
and Application 2010; 35: 401–409.
31 Smet KAG, Ryckaert WR, Pointer MR,
Deconinck G, Hanselaer P. Memory colours
and colour quality evaluation of conventional
and solid-state lamps. Optics Express 2010; 18:
26229–26244.
32 Dangol R, Islam M, Hyvarinen M, Bhusal P,
Puolakka M, Halonen L. Subjective prefer-
ences and colour quality metrics of LED light
sources. Lighting Research and Technology
2013; 45: 666–688.
33 Sandor N, Scanda J. Visual colour rendering
based on colour difference evaluations.
Lighting Research and Technology 2006; 38:
225–239.
34 Hashimoto K, Yano T, Shimizu M, Nayatani
Y. New method for specifying color-rendering
properties of light sources based on feeling of
contrast. Color Research and Application 2007;
32: 361–371.
35 Smet KAG, Ryckaert WR, Pointer MR,
Deconinck G, Hanselaer P. Correlation
between color quality metric predictions and
visual appreciation of light sources. Optics
Express 2011; 19: 8151–8166.
36 Fairchild MD. Colour Appearance Models.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 2005.
37 Clear RD. Discomfort glare: What do we
really know?. Lighting Research and
Technology 2013; 45: 141–158.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2014; 46: 619–636
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 22, 2015
38 Jay PA. Inter-relationship of the design criteria
for lighting installations. Transactions of the
Illuminating Engineering Society (London)
1968; 32: 47–71.
39 Cuttle C. Towards the third stage of the
lighting profession. Lighting Research and
Technology 2010; 42: 73–90.
40 Cuttle C. A new direction for general lighting
practice. Lighting Research and Technology
2013; 45: 22–39.
41 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. CIE
1988 28 Spectral Luminous Efficiency Function
for Photopic Vision. CIE Publication 86,
Vienna: CIE, 1990.
42 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
CIE 10 Degree Photopic Photometric
Observer. CIE Publication 165:2005. Vienna:
CIE, 2005.
43 Akashi Y, Rea MS, Bullough JD. Driver
decision making in response to peripheral
moving target under mesopic light levels.
Lighting Research and Technology 2007; 39:
53–67.
44 Rea MS, Bullough JD, Akashi Y. Several
views of metal halide and high pressure sodium
lighting for outdoor applications. Lighting
Research and Technology 2009; 41: 297–320.
45 Rea MS. Value Metrics for Better Lighting.
Bellingham WA: SPIE Press, 2013.
46 Rea MS. The lumen seen in a new light:
Making distinctions between light, lighting and
neuroscience. Lighting Research and
Technology. First published 31 March 2014.
DOI 10.1177/1477153514527599.