Impressions of Lighting in Public Squares After Dark

Abstract

Lighting may affect impressions of public squares. Following studies on office interior lighting, the present research manipulated three modes of lighting-non-uniform-uniform, peripheral-overhead, and dim-brightin three virtual squares. One study had 32 participants (15 men, 17 women) judge the spaciousness and privacy of each of the 24 public squares. A second study had a different group of 30 participants (16 men, 14 women) rate the appeal, safety from crime, and excitement of each square. Study 1 found that judged spaciousness increased with uniform and bright lighting, and that privacy increased with non-uniform, dim, and peripheral lighting. Study 2 found that rated appeal increased with uniform and bright lighting, as did safety from crime and excitement. Across the two studies, the uniform and bright lighting conditions contributed most to the kinds of favorable experiences people might expect to have in public spaces after dark.

How Much Lighting is Required to Feel Safe When Walking Through the Streets at Night?

“…Previous studies established that efficient and properly designed PSL can reduce energy waste, while making people feel safer [25][26][27][28]. However, as the present study shows, higher levels of illumination do not necessarily imply an equal rise in FoS.…”

“…The essential contribution of artificial lighting to FoS in urban areas has been emphasized in several studies [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. In particular, studies have shown that PSL may affect FoS by improving visibility and reducing concealment.…”

Illuminating for Safety: Investigating the Role of Lighting Appraisals on the Perception of Safety in the Urban Environment

“…To date, several studies have investigated the effect of lighting from a prospect–refuge perspective (e.g., Blöbaum & Hunecke, 2005; Boomsma & Steg, 2014; Loewen et al, 1993; Nasar & Bokharaei, 2017a, 2017b). Loewen and colleagues (1993), for example, found light to be the most important factor, and reported that the effect of prospect and entrapment on perceived safety was less pronounced in nighttime as compared to daytime environments.…”

“…However, many of the studies applying a prospect–refuge perspective have relied on factorial designs in which participants rate the safety of a selection of settings that differ systematically in such variables as illumination levels, prospect, concealment, and entrapment. In these (quasi-)experimental studies, the stimulus materials either consist of settings that are carefully selected based on evaluations by (expert) judges (e.g., Blöbaum & Hunecke, 2005; Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Loewen et al, 1993) or consist of systematically manipulated, mostly simulated scenes (e.g., Boomsma & Steg, 2014; Nasar & Bokharaei, 2017a, 2017b). Although such systematic factorial approaches certainly have their merits (e.g., in determining causal relations between physical attributes and safety perceptions), they also have several drawbacks that reduce ecological validity and, thus, hamper generalization of research findings to real-world situations.…”

A New Method of Random Environmental Walking for Assessing Behavioral Preferences for Different Lighting Applications

“…Previous research based on assessments of visual simulations of artificially lit outdoor spaces show that differing lighting applications as well as illuminance levels may fundamentally change the overall impression of public urban environments (Boomsma and Steg, 2014a,b; van Rijswijk, 2015; Nasar and Bokharaei, 2016). Visual simulations of the environment generally provide good representations of the built environment (Stamps, 2015), and may also be sufficient for representing variation in illuminance levels or direction of the light.…”