Progressing the rights to light debate

Chynoweth, Paul

doi:10.1108/02630800410549026

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This and related studies by Waldram also serve as the basis for the "rights to light" schema devised for the determination of daylight injury. The methodology employed by Waldram was recently critiqued in a number of papers [12] Recent studies have also shown either a preference for absolute rather than relative values, or a better correlation between user assessments of daylight adequacy and the 5/8/2016 16:22simulated occurrence of absolute values rather than the (simulated) daylight factor. In the 2012 PIER report on daylight metrics, the 300 lux indicator value represented the best correlation to occupant preference for daylight sufficiency, based on 61 spaces in California, Washington and New York, comprising 484 occupant questionnaire responses and 324 expert questionnaire responses [16].…”

Section: /8/2016 16:22mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards

Mardaljevic

Christoffersen²

2017

Building and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: MARDALJEVIC, J. and CHRISTOFFERSEN, J., 2017.`Climate connectivity' in the daylight factor basis of building standards. Building and Environment, 113, Additional Information:• This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Building AbstractThis paper describes a proposal for a daylight standard for CEN countries. It is now widely accepted in the research community, and increasingly so amongst practitioners, that the standards/guidelines for daylight in buildings are in need of upgrading. The essence of the proposal is that the 'target' for daylight provision should be founded on the availability of daylight as determined from climate files. The proposal is in fact a refinement of an approach originally described in a CIE document from 1970, and which appears to have been largely overlooked since then. The proposal states that a design should achieve a target daylight factor at workplane height across a specified percentage of the relevant floor area for half of the daylight hours in the year, where the target daylight factor is based on the provision of 300 lux. A key feature of the refinements are the formulation of the methodology such that the likelihood for misinterpretation and 'game-playing' is greatly reduced, if not eliminated altogether. The method, founded on cumulative diffuse illuminance curves, could be introduced relatively swiftly since it requires only modest enhancement of existing daylight prediction tools. In addition, the proposal will provide a sound 'footing' for eventual progression to evaluations founded on full-blown climate-based daylight modelling. BackgroundBy the late 1800s the pressure to accommodate an increasing number of people in the cities of the developing world led to taller and more tightly-packed building forms, thereby reducing and often eliminating entirely the direct view of sky from much of the useable, internal space. This in part led to the need for some objective measure of the daylighting performance of a space which could, if required, function as a tool to evaluate buildings at the planning stage. Daylight was at that time still the preferred source of illumination for both manual and clerical work -it was also 'free'. The work of Nordhaus has shown that the real cost of artificial light has dropped by nearly four orders of magnitude over the last two hundred years [1]. It is only over the last decade or two that we have come to appreciate once again the true importance of 'good' daylighting design for buildings. However the legacy of many years of effective downgrading of daylighting in the overall consideration of building design is still apparent today. Many standards for daylighting have hardly changed over 40 or more years, and often make no account of the actual availability of daylight. Attempts to progress matters have often resulted in less than satisfactory outcomes, e.g. vague or confusing criteria and/or methodologies. For example, the various 'clear sky options' recommended in both LEED and ASHRAE have resulted in approaches that ...

show abstract

Section: /8/2016 16:22mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards

Mardaljevic

Christoffersen²

2017

Building and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such concepts shouldn't be revolutionary, yet when they regard regulations that are slow to change, they often are. The ASL study also has implications for the UK where the almost century-old "rights to light" schema devised by Waldram [25] for the determination of daylight injury has recently been critiqued in a number of papers [26,27,28,29]. The measure of daylight used in the Waldram method is direct sky illumination under a uniform sky (without sun).…”

Section: Outcomes and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiscale Daylight Modeling for Urban Environments

Mardaljevic

Janes²

2013

Solar Energy at Urban Scale

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first paper (Chynoweth 2004) "grumble point"). Based on a review of archival material the current paper revisits Waldram's original arguments and re-examines some of the evidence on which they were based.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chynoweth

2005

Structural Survey

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The paper examines the origins of the so-called "grumble point" (a sky factor of 0.2 per cent) as the measure of daylight adequacy in rights to light disputes. It seeks to identify the rationale, and underlying scientific basis, for the adoption of this standard in the early 20 th century.Design / Methodology / Approach -Analysis of archive materials. Waldram's own writings suggest that the standard began as a "rule of thumb" and was only later justified by reference to other independent reports. These generally do not support the use of the standard and, in any event, were soon superseded by other reports which concluded that it was too low. There is a lack of reliable evidence to justify the original adoption of the 0.2 per cent figure and many of the assumptions underpinning modern rights to light practice are found to be based on inaccurate information. Research limitations/ implications -Continues the debate, started in this journal in 2000,about the future of surveying practice in rights to light disputes. Practical implications -Places new information in the public domain which has implicationsfor the professional liability of surveyors advising clients in rights to light cases.

show abstract

Progressing the rights to light debate – Part 1: a review of current practice

Cited by 18 publications

References 2 publications

‘Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards

‘Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards

Multiscale Daylight Modeling for Urban Environments

Progressing the rights to light debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About