Lighting Res. Technol.

2010; 42: 313–329

Field surveys of the effect of lamp spectrum on

the perception of safety and comfort at night
C Knight PhD
Philips Lighting B.V., 5600 JM Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Received 3 February 2010; Revised 2 June 2010; Accepted 5 June 2010

Public lighting improves visibility and provides orientation. It also contributes to

the perception of comfort and safety of people outside after dark. At present, high-
pressure sodium lamps are widely used in street lighting. This is in part due to
their high efficacy and relatively long lifetime (16 000 hours). Their use, however,
comes at the expense of good colour rendering. Recently developed ceramic
metal halide lamps provide many of the advantages of HPS in addition to white
light and better rendering of colours. In this paper, results of research conducted
in three European countries on the effect of lamp spectrum on face recognition
and the perception of safety and comfort outdoors are presented. The results
consistently show that at comparable illuminances, people perceive areas
illuminated with white light to be brighter, safer and more comfortable than the
same neighbourhood illuminated with yellowish light.

1. Introduction take avoiding action if necessary and the

Outdoor lighting has several important roles.
In addition to enabling safe movement,
improving visibility and providing orienta-
tion, public lighting is increasingly expected
to contribute to the perception of safety and
comfort of people outside after dark. Without
conditions that ensure safe movement, it
would not be possible for people to walk on
the street, and without conditions that ensure
a general perception of safety, people might
choose not to walk on the streets. Factors
contributing to safe movement after dark
include visual orientation and the ability to
detect obstacles on the pavement, which may
otherwise be a trip hazard. Factors contrib-
uting to the perception of safety include the
perception of spatial brightness of the area,
the ability to recognise the expression or faces
of other road users at a distance sufficient to
Address for correspondence: Colette Knight, Philips Lighting
B.V., 5600 JM Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
E-mail: colette.knight@hotmail.com
ß The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2010
absence of discomfort or disability glare.
The average illuminance or luminance, the
light distribution, the glare from the installa-
tion and the spectrum of the light source used
can all influence the safe movement, visual
performance and perception of safety and
comfort of people at night. The CIE1 has
made recommendations for light levels and
glare control for various outdoor lighting
applications. These recommendations do not
take the effect of lamp spectrum into consid-
eration. However, as illustrated by the refer-
ences below, there is a growing body of
evidence, albeit not entirely consistent, which
suggests that the spectrum of the light source
can have a major effect on visual task
performance and the perception of safety
and comfort at night.
At present, high-pressure sodium (HPS)
lamps are widely used in outdoor applications
due to their high efficacy and relatively long
lifetime (16 000 hours). Their use, however,
comes at the expense of good colour render-
ing (CRI of HPS 25). Recently developed
10.1177/1477153510376794

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

314 C Knight
ceramic metal halide (CMH) lamps provide
many of the advantages of HPS in addition to
having better colour rendering (CRI460) and
a white colour appearance. Related benefits
of these lamps for residents and pedestrians
in the areas illuminated by them might
include greater ease of facial recognition and
more accurate colour identification. Indeed,
an earlier laboratory study conducted by
Raynham and Saksvikronning2 concluded
that twice the illuminance of HPS is required
to achieve the same facial recognition distance
as with white compact fluorescent light
sources at typical nighttime outdoor light
levels. The benefits of white light for facial
recognition are already taken advantage of in
the British Standard for road lighting,
BS5489 : 20033,4 as well as the Italian
Standard, UNI 11248 : 20075. Both of these
national standards allow a lower illuminance
to be used in residential areas if the CRI of
the light source used is over 60.
There is not yet consistent agreement on
the effect of lamp spectrum on facial recog-
nition. Two studies6,7 have reported that light
source type had no significant effect on facial
recognition. Rea et al.,6 for example, per-
formed a facial recognition test under HPS
and metal halide (MH) lighting systems. In
their test, one of three confederate pedestrians
stood behind a partition, while a test partic-
ipant holding a DVD player with eight digital
colour photographs of possible confederate
pedestrians was requested to start walking
towards the confederate pedestrian and stop
as soon as he or she could guess who the
confederate pedestrian was from among the
eight different pictures. The test participant
then resumed walking and stopped again
when he or she was certain. The basis for
judgment was recorded along with the mea-
sured distance for the guess and certainty:
they did not find any statistically significant
difference between the MH and HPS lamps
for the ‘guess’ or ‘certain’ facial recognition
distances.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
The perception of safety in an area depends
on a number of factors that are not related to
lighting including the familiarity of the person
in the area and the crime rate of the area.
Nevertheless, research conducted by Boyce
et al.8 in New York City and Albany, NY,
suggests that there is a link in the public mind
between the perception of safety of an area
after dark and the perception of brightness of
that area. Consequently, there is a need for
residential areas to appear appropriately
brightly illuminated at night to support the
perceived safety of people in the area at night.
Fotios and Cheal9,10 used brightness rat-
ings, brightness rankings and brightness
matching to compare the effect of lamp
spectrum on the perceived brightness in lab-
oratory tests. Their results showed that at
equal illuminance, lighting from white MH
and compact fluorescent light sources were
perceived to be significantly brighter than
from yellowish HPS. Moreover, they found
that at the typical illuminances encountered
on urban streets (2–15 lux), the same percep-
tion of brightness was achieved when the
illuminance ratio of MH to HPS was 0.73.
These results were consistent with early lab-
oratory studies conducted by Rea11 in which
subjects were asked to adjust the illuminance
on a scale model scene illuminated with a
HPS source until it matched the brightness of
the same scene illuminated by a MH source.
At luminances of 0.1 and 1 cd/m2, the illumi-
nance ratio (MH/HPS) found to achieve an
equal perception of brightness was 0.71. This
means that people perceived scenes illumi-
nated with MH light sources to be equally as
bright as scenes illuminated with HPS light
sources when the measured illuminance was
29% lower for the MH scene. By contrast, a
study by Boyce and Bruno12 has suggested
that there is no difference in the perceived
brightness of parking lots illuminated with
MH and HPS at equal illuminance.
In the more recent field tests conducted by
Rea et al.,6 respondents stood in the middle of
 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night
a street between two luminaires and com-
pared the perception of brightness of opposite
ends of the street by alternatively looking at
the street scenes illuminated by each lumi-
naire. Posters with the same painted scenes
were located beneath each luminaire. Subjects
compared a variety of scenes in which the
average vertical illuminance on the poster
illuminated with HPS varied between 5 lux
and 15 lux, and the average vertical illumi-
nance on the poster in the opposite direction
that was illuminated with CMH also varied
between 5 lux and 15 lux. Subjects were
given written questionnaires, and for each
pair of lighting conditions, they were asked to
make a forced choice for the lighting condi-
tion, under which they would feel safer to
walk at night and under which the street and
surroundings as well as objects in their view
appeared brighter. The test included pairs of
lighting conditions for which the ratios of the
average vertical illuminance on the poster
illuminated with CMH to the average vertical
illuminance on the poster illuminated with
HPS (CMH/HPS) varied between 0.33 and 3.
Interpolation of the results suggested that an
illuminance ratio of CMH/HPS of 0.79 was
required to create an equal perception of
brightness, and a ratio of 0.66 was required to
create an equal perception of safety. These
results reinforce the viability of maintaining
the same perception of safety while reducing
the illuminance when using CMH instead of
HPS lamps.
As evidenced by the references listed above,
there are a number of laboratory studies and
field tests done in parking lots or on isolated
streets, which have evaluated the effect of
lamp spectrum on perceived safety and spatial
brightness in an area. These studies were
generally not carried out in the target appli-
cation area, that is, in actual residential streets
or with a wide cross section of people
representative of those who might use such
an area. One of the objectives of the work
reported here was to determine whether or
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
315
not the higher perceived safety and brightness
at equal illuminance of CMH compared to
HPS reported by several academic studies
done under well-controlled conditions are
indeed recognised in actual residential streets.
In other words, this work will enable us to
gauge whether or not the effect of lamp
spectrum is strong enough to be found in
actual residential streets after dark. Although
care was taken to minimise the importance of
factors not related to the lamp spectrum,
when doing tests in actual residential streets,
it is practically impossible to control all
potential influencing factors such as light
from homes or some variation in the light
distribution when different types of lamps are
used in the same luminaires and with the same
spacing between poles.
In this paper, results of field tests con-
ducted in actual urban streets in three differ-
ent European countries, namely, the
Netherlands, Spain and the United
Kingdom on the effect of lamp spectrum on
the perception of safety, comfort and face
recognition are presented. Altogether, over
300 residents participated in the experiments
under both HPS and CMH street lighting.
2. Lamp technical properties
The lamps used in the experiments were based
on HPS and CMH technologies. The com-
mercial names for the HPS and CMH lamps
used together with some properties of the
lamps are listed in Table 1. The lamp spectra
are shown in Figure 1.
3. Research methods
Research was conducted in Eindhoven, NL,
Navalcarnero, Spain, and St. Helens, UK, by
IPM International as part of a quantitative
study commissioned by Philips Lighting to
evaluate how residents experienced the street
lighting in their neighbourhoods before and
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
316 C Knight

after it was changed from SON (CCT
2000K) to CDO 2800K or CDM 4200K,
and how this change affected the perception
of safety, comfort and appreciation of their
neighbourhoods. In all cases, the existing
luminaires were used and only the lamps
were changed.
In Spain, architectural post-top luminaires
were used in the residential area in which the
tests were done. The luminaires consisted of
diffuse glass bowls through which the light
was transmitted. There was a reflector at the
top of the luminaire to prevent upward
emission of light. As a result of the diffuse
transmission, the light distribution was
unchanged between the SON and CDO
lamps. In Spain, where 150W SON and
150W CDO lamps were used, the average
horizontal illuminance was 82 lux under
SON and 81 lux under CDO, and the
Table 1 Correlated colour temperature (CCT) and colour
rendering index (CRI) of HPS and CMH sources used in
the experiments
Technology Commercial
name
HPS SON T
CMH Master City White 2800
CDO-TT 2800K
CMH Master City White 4200
CDM-TT 4200K
average vertical illuminance measured on the
pictures at the position used in the facial
recognition tests was 10 lux under both
SON and CDO.
In the Netherlands and UK, streets were
used on which the luminaires were mounted
on mast arms (brackets) and optical control
of the light was via the reflector in the
luminaire. Since CDO and SON lamps have
different light center lengths, depending on
the reflector of the luminaire used, there can
be differences in the light distribution of the
two installations. In the Netherlands, where
100 W SON and 100 W CDO 2800K lamps
were used, the average horizontal illuminance
measured on the pavement between two poles
in the test location was 16.5 lux under SON
and 14 lux with CDO 2800K. The average
vertical illuminance measured on the pictures
at the position used in the facial recognition
tests was 3.3 lux under SON and 1.4 lux
under CDO 2800K. This difference in vertical
illuminance is a result of the difference in light
distribution of the SON and CDO lamps with
CCT (K) CRI the reflector used.
As evident from Table 2, the tests in the
2000 25
UK were conducted after those in the NL and
2800 83 in Spain. In addition to evaluating the change
from (1) SON to CDO 2800K, additional
4200 90
tests were conducted in neighbouring streets
in St. Helens, UK, where the lighting was

SON CDO 2800K CDO 4200K

HPS technology CMH technology CMH technology
yellow-white light white light white light
power distribution
Relative spectral

400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700
Wavelength (nm) Wavelength (nm) Wavelength (nm)

Figure 1 Light spectra of SON (based on HPS technology), CDO 2800K and CDM 4200K (both CDO and CDM are based
on CMH technology)

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night 317

changed from (2) SON to CDM 4200K,
(3) from CDM 4200K to CDO 2800K and
(4) from CDO 2800K to SON. The latter was
done to check whether or not the ratings
given were due to the lamp spectrum or to the
fact that residents expect certain changes once
the street lighting is changed. The average
horizontal illuminance on the pavement in the
four test streets varied between 9.1 lux and
12.7 lux under SON and 8.9 lux and
12.6 lux under CDO. With the luminaires
installed in the test streets in the UK, the
difference in the average horizontal and
vertical illuminance was less than 5% between
SON and CDO installations in a given test
area.
The people responsible for public lighting
in the respective cities identified possible
locations where the lighting could be changed
according to the research schedule. One
requirements for the test areas was that
they were safe. This was necessary to ensure
that the researchers could conduct interviews
and tests at night with minimal risk. The
residents were sent or shown a letter inform-
ing them that tests were being conducted to
evaluate the perception of safety of the area
after dark. There was no mention of lighting
or the commissioner (i.e. Philips) in the
letters.
The number of different respondents who
participated in the tests in each area is shown
in Table 2. The respondents were recruited
from people living in the vicinity but not in
the actual streets in the experimental area.
The splits over gender and age groups (below
and above 40 years) are shown in Table 3.
Additional recruitment criteria were that
respondents could express themselves clearly
and that they walked or biked outside after
dark at least three times a week. The colour
vision and acuity of respondents was not
tested. However, it should be noted that in the
comparisons made, the same respondents
performed the colour and facial recognition
tests under both the ‘before’ and ‘after’

Table 2 The number of respondents and the timing of evaluations done in three European cities

Location Number of Installed lamps and test dates Evaluations done

different
respondents
Initial Test date Lighting Test date Comparison Subjective
lighting initial after second of visual evaluation
condition condition change condition performance
p p
Eindhoven, NL 55 SON T March 2006 CDO TT April 2006
100 W 2800K 100 W p
56 CDO TT April 2006
2800K 100 W
p p
Navalcarnero, 60 SON T April 2007 CDO ET May 2007
Spain 150 W 2800K 150 W p
60 CDO ET May 2007
2800K 150 W
p p
St. Helens, UK 30 SON T November 2008 CDO TT January 2009
70 W 2800K 70 W p p
33 SON T November 2008 CDM TT January 2009
70 W 4200K 70 W p p
31 CDO TT November 2008 SON T 70 W January 2009
2800K 70 W p p
31 CDM TT November 2008 CDO TT January 2009
4200K 70 W 2800K 70 W

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

318 C Knight
Table 3 Gender and age groups used in the experiments
Eindhoven, NL (n ¼ 111) Navalcarnero, Spain (n ¼ 120) St. Helens, UK (n ¼ 125) All three countries (n ¼ 356)
# Male # Female # Male
40 17 13 29
440 54 27 33
condition, and a ‘within subjects’ statistical
analysis was done.
The test involved individual face-to-face
interviews during which a detailed question-
naire was filled in. In addition, objective
measurements of facial recognition were con-
ducted. Each test lasted 45 minutes. The
first test of the evening started at least
30 minutes after sunset. In the UK and
Netherlands, the last test of the evening was
completed before 10:15 pm. In Spain, the last
test of the evening was completed before
11 pm.
A mixed research design was used in the
Netherlands and Spain. This means that 55
Dutch respondents and 60 Spanish respon-
dents participated in the test both under the
initial lighting condition as well as after the
lighting had been changed (the ‘before and
after’ group), while others only participated in
the subjective evaluations after the lighting
had been changed (the ‘after only’ group;
Table 2). This method was used to check if the
mean rating of the second lighting (CDO
2800K in both Spain and NL) and compar-
ison with the previous lighting condition
(SON in both cases) was different between
the group of people who participated in the
test under the initial lighting condition and
the group that only participated in the test
under the changed lighting condition. The
data from the two groups were analysed and
plotted separately as shown, for example, in
Figures 4 and 5. Since, as will be presented in
the results, no significant differences in the
rating of the second lighting conditions were
found between the two groups, a mixed
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
# Female # Male # Female # Male # Female
33 26 25 72 71
25 30 44 117 96
research design was not used in the subse-
quent tests done in the UK. Instead, addi-
tional lighting changes were investigated. In
the tests in the UK, each participant per-
formed the test under both lighting conditions
in one area and different participants per-
formed the tests in the different areas.
In all three countries, the lighting was
changed soon after the first set of interviews
(‘before’ interviews) were completed and the
‘after’ interviews were started at least 3 weeks
after installation of the new lighting. There
was no extra maintenance (e.g. cleaning)
when the lamps were changed.
During the face-to-face interviews, the
respondents were asked to
(1) rate their perception of safety and com-
fort in the test area on a five-point scale
(see Table 4 for questions asked),
(2) rate the importance of street lighting to
their perception of safety and comfort,
and
(3) list the most important aspects of lighting
for them and to evaluate the street light-
ing in the test area against these and other
aspects.
Subsequently, the respondents were explic-
itly asked to
(4) make various comparisons using a seven-
point scale with respect to the previous
lighting condition (see Table 5 for ques-
tions asked).
Visual performance was evaluated on the
basis of the distance to recognise faces and
colours. During the facial recognition test, the
researchers stood with their back towards the
 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night 319
Table 4 Mean ratings for different lighting conditions in St. Helens

Questions Mean rating

N Condition 1 ! Condition 2 Condition 1 Condition 2 p

How do you feel about this 30 SON ! CDO 2800K 1.93 1.37 50.05
area here? After sunset, do you feel: 33 SON ! CDM 4200K 1.91 1.39 50.05
(1) very comfortable/at 31 CDO 2800K ! SON 1.61 1.68 40.05
ease , (5) very uncomfortable/uneasy? 31 CDM 4200K ! CDO 2800K 1.74 1.65 40.05
Now I would like you to tell 30 SON ! CDO 2800K 2.40 1.67 50.05
me what you think of the lighting in 33 SON ! CDM 4200K 2.61 1.30 50.05
terms of its quality: By quality I mean 31 CDO 2800K ! SON 1.94 2.58 50.05
nice light, good colour. Do you feel that it is: 31 CDM 4200K ! CDO 2800K 1.77 1.94 40.05
(1) very pleasant , (5) very unpleasant
And now I would like to know whether the 30 SON ! CDO 2800K 2.20 1.33 50.05
lighting here makes you feel safe or not. 33 SON ! CDM 4200K 2.06 1.33 50.05
Does it make you feel: (1) very safe) , 31 CDO 2800K ! SON 1.52 2.06 50.05
(5) very unsafe? 31 CDM 4200K ! CDO 2800K 1.65 1.68 40.05
And how do you rate the brightness of the area. 30 SON ! CDO 2800K 3.38 2.90 50.05
For you personally, is it: (1) much too bright , 33 SON ! CDM 4200K 3.34 3.00 50.05
(5) much too dark or (3) just right? 31 CDO 2800K ! SON 3.00 3.61 50.05
31 CDM 4200K ! CDO 2800K 2.97 3.03 40.05

closest pole so that the picture was only
illuminated from the distant neighbouring
pole. The researchers held pictures with the
faces of well-known personalities for the
particular country in front of themselves.
The pictures were printed on non-glossy A4
paper so that the size of the face was
approximately life sized. A total of eight
different pictures were used. The pictures
were divided into two groups of four pictures.
Half of the residents were shown one group of
four pictures under the initial lighting, and the
second group of pictures after the lighting had
been changed. The other half of the partici-
pants was shown the pictures under the
reverse lighting conditions so that all pictures
were observed under both lighting conditions.
The order of the four pictures shown was
randomised among the different participants.
Only the respondents in the ‘before þ after’
group did the facial recognition test, and a
within-subject analysis was done to compare
the performance under the different light
sources.
The poles used and the position at which
the researcher stood relative to the pole was
chosen under the initial lighting. The vertical
illuminance at the position of the pictures was
measured under both lighting conditions.
The protocol for the facial recognition test
was as follows. As shown schematically in
Figure 2, the test person (P) started walking
slowly from a distance of 15 m towards the
researcher (R) holding the picture. The test
person was instructed to stop and say as soon
as they were close enough to
(1) identify the gender of the person on the
picture,
(2) see the picture well enough to guess the
identity of the person, and
(3) see the person well enough to be sure of
their identity.
It was stressed that the focus was on seeing
the picture well enough to guess or be sure of
the identity of the person on the picture even
if the respondent did not know the person or
remember their name. Both the mean distance
at which the respondents could guess the
identity of the person as well as when they
said they were sure of the identity of
the person on the picture is given in Table 6.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

320 C Knight
Table 5 Mean ratings for various evaluations comparing the second to the first lighting condition

Question Land N Group Condition 1 Mean Standard Test value ¼ 4,

! error p (2 tailed)
Condition 2 mean

Now I would like to ask you how NL 55 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 3.28 0.24 50.05
comfortable and pleasant the present 56 a only SON ! CDO 2800K 3.24 0.19 50.05
lighting is in your personal opinion? Spain 60 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 2.12 0.10 50.05
Compared to the lighting before, is it? 60 a only SON ! CDO 2800K 2.31 0.15 50.05
much more comfortable (1) UK 30 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 1.77 0.20 50.05
the same (4) much less comfortable (7) 33 bþa SON ! CDM 4200K 1.94 0.17 50.05
31 bþa CDO 2800K 4.06 0.37 40.05
! SON
31 b þ a CDM 4200K 3.45 0.21 50.05
! CDO 2800K
And how about safety? How does NL 55 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 3.42 0.17 50.05
the present lighting compare with the 56 a only SON ! CDO 2800K 3.25 0.15 50.05
lighting before? Does it make you feel Spain 60 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 2.41 0.11 50.05
much safer (1) the same (4) 60 a only SON ! CDO 2800K 2.63 0.13 50.05
much less safe (7) UK 30 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 2.07 0.21 50.05
33 bþa SON ! CDM 4200K 1.97 0.16 50.05
31 bþa CDO 2800K 4.32 0.28 40.05
! SON
31 b þ a CDM 4200K 3.71 0.18 40.05
! CDO 2800K
And what about the brightness NL 55 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 3.17 0.21 50.05
of the area? Does it look much 56 a only SON ! CDO 2800K 2.76 0.18 50.05
brighter (1) the same (4) Spain 60 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 2.08 0.96 50.05
much less bright (7) 60 a only SON ! CDO 2800K 2.35 0.12 50.05
UK 30 bþa SON ! CDO 2800K 1.67 0.19 50.05
33 bþa SON ! CDM 4200K 1.85 0.23 50.05
31 bþa CDO 2800K 4.61 0.35 40.05
! SON
31 b þ a CDM 4200K 3.65 0.21 40.05
! CDO 2800K

b þ a ¼ ‘before þ after’ group; a only ¼ ‘after only’ group.

The associated standard error of the mean is

also given.

Pavement
1 2 3 4 5 6 . . . . . . . 15m
4. Results ~150cm
R P
~150cm
4.1 Perception in streets illuminated with SON
Pole Neighbouring pole
and CDO Street -Illuminates picture
In all three countries, the most important R: Position at which researcher stood holding pictures
aspect of street lighting given by the respon- P: Position from which the respondent started walking towards the
dents was the ‘brightness’ of the illuminated researcher.
area. Consistent with studies referenced in the The respondent paused to say when he/she
(1) could identify the gender of the person
‘Introduction’ section, a higher spatial bright- (2) could guess the identity of the person and
ness of the street and pavement contributes to (3) was sure of the identity of the person

a higher perception of safety. Since one of the Figure 2 Schematic of the setup used in the facial
requirements of the areas chosen was that it recognition tests

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night
was safe, it is not surprising that independent
of the lighting, people felt relatively safe in all
test areas.
As illustrated by the histograms of the
results from the UK, substantially more
people felt very comfortable when the same
area was illuminated with CDO 2800K or
CDM 4200K compared to SON (Figure 3).
This trend was also seen in Eindhoven and in
Navalcarnero. The mean and standard error
of the mean is written next to the plots in
Figure 3 and also by similar plots in later
figures.
The respondents were asked the same
questions under both lighting conditions.
At the point where they were asked these
questions under the first lighting condition,
there was no discussion that the lighting
would be changed, and under the second
lighting condition, there was no mention that
the lighting had been changed. Table 4
summarises how respondents in the UK
answered various questions on five-point
scales regarding their perception of comfort
in the area, the quality of the lighting and the
effect of the street lighting on their perception
of safety and brightness of the area. The
means for the above evaluations are given for
the situation both before and after the light-
ing had been changed in the different loca-
tions. For each evaluation, a Levene’s test
was used to access the equality of variances of
the sample taken before and the sample taken
after the lighting was changed. There were no
significant differences in the variances found
for the different evaluations. Therefore, it was
appropriate to use paired-sample t-tests to
determine if the means of the ratings under
the first and second lighting condition are
different or not. There is a difference when
the corresponding value in probability (p)
column in Table 4 is less than 0.05.
As seen in Table 4, there were no statisti-
cally significant differences according to a
t-test (p40.05) regarding how the same
people rated the area and effect of the street
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
321
lighting on their perception of safety when the
lighting was changed from CDM 4200K to
CDO 2800K. However, when the lighting was
changed from SON to either CDO 2800K or
CDM 4200K, the perception of safety, com-
fort, brightness and light quality was
improved (p50.05 according to the t-tests).
4.2 Order of lamp change–absolute ratings
As discussed above, when the lighting was
changed from SON to CDO 2800K, the
perception of safety, comfort, brightness and
light quality was statistically significantly
improved. When the reverse change was
made and the lighting was changed from
CDO 2800K to SON, there was a statistically
significant reduction in the rated light quality,
brightness of the area and the effect of
lighting on the perception of safety (p50.05
according to t-tests).
After the lighting in Hereford Close had
been changed from CDO 2800K to SON, the
area was evaluated to be ‘too dark’ (Table 4).
The brightness of the area was previously
rated to be ‘just right’ when CDO 2800K
lamps at a comparable average horizontal
illuminance were installed. The respondents
also rated the light quality and their percep-
tion of safety in this same street illuminated
with SON on average lower than how they
rated it when it was previously illuminated
with CDO 2800K. With this change from
CDO 2800K to SON, the average rating for
the perception of comfort decreased slightly
under SON. However, in this case, the differ-
ence was not statistically significant (p40.05).
The results indicate that for pedestrians,
streets illuminated with white light are per-
ceived to be brighter and safer and at least
equal but often more comfortable than the
same streets with SON at comparable average
illuminance. This effect is found independent
of the order in which SON and CDO street
lighting is evaluated.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
322 C Knight
Table 6 Mean distances for facial recognition measured in tests done in Eindhoven, Navalcarnero and St. Helens

Condition Horizontal Vertical Distance Distance to p

illuminance on illuminance on to guess identify
pavement (lux) picture (lux) person person
mean  mean  mean  mean 
standard standard standard standard
deviation deviation error mean error mean
(m) (m)

Eindhoven, The Netherlands (55 respondents)

1 SON T 16.5  1.6 3.3  0.6 7.6  0.5 5.4  0.5 50.05
2 CDO TT 2800K 14.1  1.5 1.4  0.4 8.5  0.2 6.6  0.4
Navalcarnero, Spain (60 respondents)
1 SON T 81.2  2.4 10  0.7 9.7  1.9 8.5  0.26 50.05
2 CDO ET 2800K 82.4  2.6 10  0.8 11.1  1.4 10.9  0.21
The Shires and Wedge Avenue, St. Helens, UK (30 respondents)
1 SON T 12.7  2.9 1.6  0.5 10.2  0.6 8.7  0.5 50.05
2 CDO TT 2800K 12.1  3.3 1.6  0.5 11.3  0.4 9.8  0.4
Hereford Close, St. Helens, UK (31 respondents)
1 CDO TT 2800K 10.9  4.5 1.6  0.6 9.1  0.5 7.6  0.5 50.05
2 SON 11.5  3.4 1.6  0.6 10.1  0.5 8.9  0.7
Shropshire Gardens, St. Helens, UK (33 respondents)
1 SON 9.1  2.5 0.6  0.3 7.6  0.3 5.7  0.5 50.05
2 CDM TT 4200K 8.9  2.7 0.6  0.4 9.1  0.5 7.1  0.6
Ledger Road, St. Helens, UK (31 respondents)
1 CDM TT 4200K 12.3  3.0 1.6  0.7 10.5  0.6 9.8  0.5 50.05
2 CDO TT 2800K 12.6  3.4 1.6  0.6 11.9  0.7 11.3  0.5

4.3 Awareness of change CDO 2800K. When triggered to look at the

After answering the questions shown in
Table 4, the respondents were asked during
the second condition if they had noticed any
recent changes in the test area. As mentioned
in the research methods section, the respon-
dents in general did not live in the streets
where the lighting had been changed, but in
the vicinity. About 50% of the Dutch respon-
dents in the ‘before þ after’ group spontane-
ously mentioned the street lighting had been
changed, as did about 40% in the Dutch ‘after
only’ group. By comparison, in Spain, 77%
of the respondents in the ‘before þ after’
group and 50% of the respondents in the
‘after only’ group spontaneously mentioned
that the street lighting had been changed. In
St. Helens, 85% of the respondents noticed
the change from SON to CDO and 55%
noticed the change from CDM 4200K to
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
street lighting, the majority of respondents,
including those in the ‘after only’ groups in
the Netherlands and Spain who had not
spontaneously mentioned the street lighting,
eventually reported that the colour of the
street lights had changed or that brighter
street lights had been installed.
4.4 Comparison between initial and changed
street lighting
Since the street lighting in the Netherlands
and Spain was changed on a commonly used
connecting road in the residential area, even
those respondents who did not do the test
under the first condition (i.e. ‘after only’
group) were familiar with the test area. In the
UK, where smaller residential streets were
used, all of the respondents did the test under

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night 323
25 SON The Shires & Wedge Ave. SON CDO 2800K
40 ‘Before+After’ 2.12±0.10
19 1.93 ± 0.15
8 3 group n =60
0

Number of respondents
25 CDO 2800K 36
1.37 ± 0.09 11
5
19 8
0
11
0 40
‘After only’ 2.31 ± 0.15
25 SON Shropshire Gardens group n = 60
20 1.91 ± 0.13 32
9 5 5
0 2 2 9 8 1
25 0
Number of respondents

CDO 4200K
1.39 ± 0.08 More comfort Less comfort
Same Can’t say
20 13
Much more A little more A little less Much less
0 comfortable comfortable
comfortable comfortable
25 CDO 2800K Hereford Close 1 3 5 7

17 12 1.61 ± 0.16
Figure 4 Histograms showing how respondents in
0 1 1 Navalcarnero, Spain, compare the perception of comfort
25 SON
1.68 ± 0.12
after the lighting was changed to CDO. The mean and the
standard error of the mean are listed. Question: How
16 12
0 3 comfortable is the current street lighting compared to the
25 street lighting before? (SON ! CDO 2800K, CDO is the
CDO 4200K Ledger Road
‘current’ lighting).
19 1.74 ± 0.10
10
0 2
25 CDO 2800K
1.65 ± 0.10 SON CDO 2800K
18
12 30 3.42±0.17
0 1 ‘Before + After’
group n = 55
Nnumber of respondents

Very Comfortable Uncomfortable Very 26

comfortable Neutral uncomfortable
1 2 3 4 5 8 10 1 2 1 3
0 4
30 ‘After only’ 3.25±0.15
Figure 3 Histograms showing how respondents in St.
Helens, UK, rated the perception of comfort before and group n = 56
after the lighting had been changed. Question: How do 27
you feel about the area here? After sunset, please 3 11 13
1 1
rate how you feel on a five-point scale from very 0
comfortable/very much at ease (1) to very uncomfort- Safer Same Less safe Can’t say
able/very uneasy (5). Much A little A little Much less
safer safer less safe safe
1 3 5 7

Figure 5 Histograms showing how respondents in

the initial as well as the second lighting Eindhoven, NL, compared the perception of safety in
the test neighbourhood after the lighting had been
condition. Thus, the vast majority of respon- changed to CDO. The mean and the standard error of
dents could make an evaluation as to whether the mean are listed. Question: How does the present
or not they felt equally comfortable (or safe, lighting compare with the lighting before? Does it make
you feel much more safe, the same or much less safe?
etc.), or less or more so than before. The (SON ! CDO 2800K, CDO is the ‘present’ lighting).
comparison was done using a seven-point
scale, where ‘no difference’ was assigned a
value of four. A one-sample t-test was used to When specifically asked during the second
check the difference between the mean of the lighting condition to compare the lighting
distribution and the test value ‘4’ (no differ- with the previous condition, the majority of
ence). In Figures 4–6, results of some of the respondents in all three countries rated the
responses are shown graphically, and in CDO street lighting to be equally or more
Table 5, a wide range of data is summarised. comfortable than the SON street lighting.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

324 C Knight

30 SON CDO 2800K 1.67 ± 0.19 4.5 Order of lamp change–comparison ratings
16
Consistent with their absolute rating of
11 2 1
0 their perception of safety, comfort and bright-
30 SON CDM 4200K 1.85 ± 0.23 ness under the two lighting conditions
Number of respondents

21 6
4 1
0 dents said that their perception of safety,
30 CDO 2800K
11
3 3
0
1 statistically significant according to indepen-
CDM 4200K
30
0
2 4 2 20
Brighter Same
Much A little
brighter brighter
1 3
Figure 6 Histograms showing how respondents in
St. Helens, UK, compared the brightness in the test
neighbourhoods after the lighting had been changed as
shown on the plots. The mean and standard error of the
mean are listed. Question: How does the present lighting
compare with the lighting before in terms of brightness
and quantity of light?
This finding was independent of whether or
not the respondents participated in the test
under the initial lighting conditions. Also,
those respondents who only participated in
the test after the SON lighting had been
changed to CDO lighting and who recognised
that the lighting had changed evaluated the
CDO lighting to be more comfortable (i.e.
there were no statistically significant differ-
ences between the ‘before þ after’ and the
‘after only’ groups in either the Netherlands
or Spain).
The most common reasons given for the
increased comfort of CDO street lighting were
related to perception of the respondents that
they could see more clearly, better and further.
The reason most often given by the few respon-
dents who rated the area to be less comfortable
after the change to white light was that the area
was too brightly lit in their opinion.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
(Table 4), when asked to compare, respon-
1
SON 4.61 ± 0.35 comfort and brightness was improved under
8
CDO lighting (Table 5). The differences were
1 4
CDO 2800K 3.65 ± 0.21
dent one-sample t-tests, which were done to
determine whether or not respondents rated
1 2 the second condition differently from the first.
As mentioned in the previous section, the
Less bright t-tests used a test value of four, which was the
A little less Much less value assigned when the respondents did not
bright bright perceive a difference between the second and
5 7
first condition.
In the test street in St. Helens, where the
reverse change was made, namely, the lighting
was changed from CDO 2800K to SON, some
respondents reported that their perception of
safety had deteriorated, while the majority
said that they did not notice any change in the
perceived safety in the area. As a result, the
difference in their comparison on their per-
ception of safety was not statistically signif-
icantly different according to an independent
one-sample t-test (p40.05). Nevertheless, as
noted previously, the average rating of their
perception of safety and brightness was sta-
tistically significantly lower in the second
lighting condition under SON than under
the initial lighting condition with CDO 2800K
(Table 4). The fact that this was not trans-
lated into a significant difference in the rated
comparison when the CDO lighting was
offered first and SON offered subsequently
might indicate that there is a positive
enhancement in the comparison of the
second lighting condition since respondents
might automatically expect an improvement
when street lighting is changed. Nevertheless,
despite with this ‘expected improvement’,
SON is not rated more positively than white
light even when it is shown as the second
lighting condition.

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night
SON ˜ CDO 2800
Much less bright
Less bright
A little less bright
95% CI
Same
3.2
A little brighter
2.1
Brighter
1.7
Much brighter
NL UK Spain
Country
Figure 7 Comparison of how respondents in the
Netherlands, the UK and Spain rated the spatial bright-
ness of the area illuminated with CDO 2800K compared
to when it was illuminated with SON. The data shown for
each country are the mean and the associated 95%
confidence interval.
No difference was found between the
perceived safety under CDO 2800K and
CDM 4200K in St. Helens. CDM 4200K
was not evaluated in the Netherlands and
Spain in this test.
The main reason given in all three countries
for the increased perception of safety under
white light is related to the perception of
higher brightness of the whole area. The
majority of respondents perceive the area
illuminated with CDO street lighting to be
brighter, even though the measured illumi-
nance was not increased (Table 6). This is
consistent with previous laboratory studies
referenced in the ‘Introduction’ section.
4.6 Comparisons between countries
The results presented up to this point are
based on the data analysed separately for
each of the three countries. In Figures 7 and 8,
the average rating for the difference in
perceived spatial brightness and safety after
switching the lamps from SON to CDO
2800K is compared between the countries.
There is no statistical difference on either
rating between the UK and Spain (p40.05
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
325
SON ˜ CDO 2800
Much less safe
Less safe
A little less safe
95% CI
Same
3.4
A little safer
2.4
2.1
Safer
Much safer
NL UK Spain
Country
Figure 8 Comparison of how respondents in the
Netherlands, the UK and Spain rated their perception of
safety in the area illuminated with CDO 2800K compared
to when it was illuminated with SON. The data shown for
each country are the mean and the associated 95%
confidence interval.
according to a Scheffe test for the differences
between means). The Scheffe test was used in
this case since the sample sizes in the three
countries were not equal. However, there is a
statistically significant difference between the
Netherlands and the other two countries
(p50.05 according to a Scheffe test). In the
Netherlands, the average difference in ratings
of spatial brightness and perceived safety
between streets illuminated with SON and
CDO were lower than in Spain or the UK.
The data for all of the countries together
was also analysed for differences between
different age (40 and 440 years old) and
gender groups. As shown in Table 7, no
significant differences were found between the
different age and gender groups of this sample
(p40.05 according to Scheffe tests).
In summary, in all three countries, respon-
dents generally evaluated the area when
illuminated with CDO street lighting as
brighter, safer and more comfortable com-
pared to when it was illuminated with SON.
Furthermore, most respondents appreciated
the increased perception of brightness and
associated higher perceived safety achieved by
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
326 C Knight
Table 7 Mean ratings of various evaluations organised according to gender and age group

Respondent N Mean  standard Compared to

group deviation respondent
group

Now I would like to ask you Male 440

how comfortable and pleasant Male 40 23 2.2  0.9 Female 40
the present lighting is in Female 440
your personal opinion? Male 40
Compared to the lighting before, is it? Male 440 52 2.5  1.5 Female 40
– much more comfortable (1) Female 440
– the same (4) Male 40
– much less comfortable (7) Female 40 35 2.2  1.3 Male 440
Female 440
Male 40
Female 440 33 3.0  1.7 Male 440
Female 40
And how about safety? Male 440
How does the present lighting Male 40 23 2.5  1.1 Female 40
compare with the lighting before? Female 440
Does it make you feel Male 40
– much safer (1) Male 440 52 2.8  1.3 Female 40
– the same (4) Female 440
– much less safe (7) Male 40
Female 40 35 2.5  1.3 Male 440
Female 440
Male 40
Female 440 33 2.9  1.1 Male 440
Female 40
And what about the Male 440
brightness of the area? Male 40 23 2.2  0.8 Female 40
Does it look Female 440
– much brighter (1) Male 40
– the same (4) Male 440 52 2.6  1.5 Female 40
– much less bright (7) Female 440
Male 40
Female 40 35 2.1  1.2 Male 440
Female 440
Male 40
Female 440 33 2.8  1.5 Male 440
Female 40

using white CDO street lighting. This was
achieved at the same installed power and
comparable average illuminances.
4.7 Facial recognition
In each area, respondents in the ‘before þ
after’ group performed facial recognition tests
under two lighting conditions. The average
distances at which the respondents thought
they could guess the identity of the person on
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
the pictures as well as the distances when they
said they were sure of the identity are given in
Table 6. Most respondents were able to
identify the gender of the person under all
lighting conditions from their starting posi-
tion (i.e. from a distance of 15 m).
In Spain and the Netherlands, the distance
at which residents were sure that they could
recognise faces on the picture was increased
by more than 20% under CDO lighting. In
tests conducted in the UK, independent of

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015

 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night
whether the test was first done under CDO
2800K, CDM 4200K or SON, respondents
consistently expressed that they felt that their
visibility and ability to see expressions, faces
and details was improved under white CDO
sources. However, this was not consistently
reflected in the results from the facial recog-
nition tests done in St. Helens. In Hereford
Close, where the test was first done under
CDO 2800K and then under SON, the mean
distance for facial recognition was longer
under SON. It should also be noted that in
Hereford Close, the mean distance for facial
recognition under CDO was lower than in
other test locations in St. Helens where the
vertical illuminance on the pictures were
comparable. The reason for this is unclear.
5. Discussion
The results presented in this paper are based
on quantitative research exploring the effect
of lamp spectrum on people’s perception of
street lighting after dark. The results show
that people experience several benefits in
residential streets when white light is used
instead of yellowish street lighting. In partic-
ular, the perceptions of brightness, comfort
and safety at comparable average illumi-
nances are significantly enhanced in the
same street as judged by respondents in
three European countries who conducted the
tests in streets before and after the lighting
had been changed between SON and warm
CMH street lighting.
The fact that a significant effect of the light
source spectrum on the perception of bright-
ness and safety is not only found under
controlled laboratory conditions as refer-
enced in the ‘Introduction’ section but also
in actual residential streets underpins its
relevance in residential street lighting appli-
cation. It also reinforces the need to include it
as a parameter in recommendations for res-
idential street lighting.
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
327
In all test streets used in this work, SON
lamps were replaced with CDO 2800K or
CDM 4200K lamps in the same luminaires or
vice versa. In the case of the Spanish test
location, the average horizontal illuminance
on the pavement during the test was 1.5%
lower with SON than with CDO 2800K.
In the UK test streets, it was 2% to 5%
higher in the case of SON compared to CDO
2800K. In the Dutch test location, the average
horizontal illuminance was 14% higher with
SON than with CDO 2800K. This was caused
by differences in the light distribution when
using SON and CDO 2800K lamps in the
luminaires used. Nevertheless, at the illumi-
nances used in all of the test locations,
respondents evaluated the spatial brightness
to be higher when the same streets were
illuminated with CDO than when they were
illuminated with SON. As noted in the
section comparing the results from the three
different countries, the average difference in
ratings of spatial brightness and safety
between SON and CDO were lower in the
Netherlands than in the UK or Spain. The
role that the differences in average horizontal
illuminance, light distribution or other factors
might have played in the difference between
the ratings in the Netherlands and the other
two countries was not examined further.
The results of the facial recognition tests
were not consistent. In all test locations, inde-
pendent of whether or not the tests were first
done under SON or CDO, respondents
described their ability to see faces better under
CDO than under SON. However, the faces on
the pictures were often, but not always recog-
nised from further away under CDO than
under SON. This inconsistency might point to
the complexity of the facial recognition task
and the need for further studies to clarify the
role of different factors, which can influence
facial recognition. These factors might include
glare, light distribution and lamp spectrum
among others in addition to the vertical or
semi-cylindrical illuminance.
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
328 C Knight
The results of these field tests together with
other published results13,14 illustrate the lim-
itations of the current practice of using the
photopic luminous efficiency function V() at
mesopic light levels (i.e. between 0.05 and
5 cd/m2). V() is used to transform the
spectral power distribution of a light source
into a single measure of the light level
(luminance and illuminance). V() character-
ises the spectral sensitivity of foveal cones,
which peak at 555 nm under photopic lighting
conditions (i.e.45 cd/m2). However, many
of the light levels encountered on residential
streets at night fall within the mesopic range.
At mesopic light levels, both rods and cones
in the retina may be active. This leads to
changes in the spectral sensitivity with chang-
ing light levels since the relative contributions
of rods and cones vary with changing light
levels in the mesopic region. The peak of the
spectral sensitivity of rods is at 507 nm.
Therefore, for lighting applications at night,
the effectiveness of lamps with relatively more
short wavelength emissions (e.g. white light
sources compared to yellow light sources) can
be underestimated by the current system of
photometry. This is currently being addressed
by various technical committees within the
CIE. In particular, CIE TC 1-58 has estab-
lished mesopic sensitivity functions, which
can serve as the foundation of a system of
mesopic photometry based on visual task
performance (e.g. detection of objects, speed
of detection and identification of the objects).
This system is not expected to correlate well
with visual assessment of brightness in the
mesopic region. However, another technical
committee (TC 1-37) is developing a supple-
mentary system of photometry for evaluation
of lighting in terms of brightness at all
illuminances.
The use of a more appropriate system of
mesopic photometry will encourage the use of
more visually effective light sources for the
mesopic range. This can contribute to an
increased perception of safety or enable the
Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015
use of lower illuminances while maintaining
the perception of spatial brightness and safety
in an area. The on-going work of CIE TC
4-48 to define the visual effects of spectral
power distribution under mesopic conditions
in road lighting with a focus on residential
streets and pedestrian areas is also very
relevant in this respect.
References
1 Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage.
Recommendations for the lighting of roads for
motor and pedestrian traffic. CIE Publication
115–1995. Vienna: CIE, 1995.
2 Raynham P, Saksvikronning T. White light
and facial recognition. The Lighting Journal
2003; 68: 29–33.
3 British Standards Institution (BSI), BS EN
13201-2:2003. Road Lighting – Part 2:
Performance Requirements. London: BSI,
2003.
4 Scott A. White light – the UK balance sheet.
The Lighting Journal 2005; 70: 18–20.
5 Norma Italians, UNI 1124800. Illuminazione
Stradale, Selezione delle Categarie
Illuminotechniche. Rome: Norma Italians,
2007.
6 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.
7 Boyce PR, Rea MS. Security lighting: Effects
of illuminance and light source on the capa-
bilities of guards and intruders. Lighting
Research and Technology 1990; 22: 57–79.
8 Boyce PR, Eklund NH, Hamilton BJ, Bruno
LD. Perceptions of safety at night in different
lighting conditions. Lighting Research and
Technology 2000; 32: 79–91.
9 Fotios SA, Cheal C. Lighting for subsidi-
ary streets: Investigation of lamps of
different SPD. Part 1 – visual performance.
Lighting Research and Technology 2007; 39:
215–232.
10 Fotios SA, Cheal C. Lighting for subsidiary
streets: Investigation of lamps of different
SPD. Part 2 – brightness. Lighting Research
and Technology 2007; 39: 233–252.
 Lamp spectrum, safety and comfort at night 329

11 Rea MS. Essay by invitation. Lighting Design
and Application 1996; 26: 15–16.
12 Boyce PR, Bruno LD. An evaluation of high
pressure sodium and metal halide light sources
for parking lot lighting. Journal of the
Illuminating Engineering Society 1999; 28:
16–32.
13 Goodman T, Forbes A, Walkey H, Eloholma
M, Halonen L, Alferdinck J, Freiding A,
Bodrogi P, Várady G, Szalmas A. Mesopic
visual efficiency IV: A model with relevance
to night-time driving and other applications.
Lighting Research and Technology 2007; 39:
365–392.
14 Rea MS, Bullough JD. Making the move
to a unified system of photometry.
Lighting Research and Technology 2007;
39: 393–408.

Lighting Res. Technol. 2010; 42: 313–329

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at INSTITUTO BIOMECANICA VALENCI on September 4, 2015