|
|
|
productivity by even a small amount are thus highly cost-effective. While there is 
little hard data that shows a direct relationship between energy-efficient daylighting 
designs and productivity, there is anecdotal evidence that views of the outdoors, 
connections to the outside, and a glare-free and thermally comfortable environ- 
ment all contribute to a more satisfied worker--who is likely to be more productive 
than an unhappy, uncomfortable worker. We
evaluated the occupants' acceptance and satisfaction of their work environ- 
ment in a limited full-scale test with the automated blind|lighting system. A small 
number of occupants performed a limited set of visual tasks. These occupants re- 
ported that they were generally satisfied with the performance of the automated 
system. Although their satisfaction
increased when they were given more control

over the system, they also reported more dissatisfaction with specific problems 
with glare. They also indicated a desire for lighting levels above those typically 
provided (500 lux).
The incremental cost of the automated venetian
blind/ lighting system should be 
approximately $3-5/ft2-glazing for
the motor, computer chip, power source, sen- 
sors, installation, commissioning, and maintenance. Considering energy and peak 
demand savings alone, we estimate that the technology has a simple payback of 
about ten years for the Los Angeles climate
(at $0.09/kWh). An assigned value for 
qualitative benefits would make this system more economical. Few technologies 
have such an immediate impact on the
quality of the inhabited environment and 
the comfort of its occupants. Aside from energy-efficient qualities, window and 
lighting technologies can change the mood of the interior, the comfort of occupants 
sitting beside it, and the character of the building. Demonstrating value for the 
amenity these systems deliver could increase
market viability. As an example, the 
market growth popularity of low-E window glazing may have been partly due to 
its improvement in thermal comfort,
not simply to its increased energy-efficiency. 
Correlating increases in worker satisfaction
and productivity would build an even 
stronger economic argument but will require a significant R&D
investment. |
|