A Window View Quality Assessment Framework

References

• Abboushi B, Elzeyadi I, Taylor R, Sereno M. 2019. Fractals in architecture: the visual interest, preference, and mood response to projected fractal light patterns in interior spaces. J Environ Psychol. 61:57–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd-Alhamid F, Kent M, Calautit J, Wu Y. 2020. Evaluating the impact of viewing location on view perception using a virtual environment. Build Environ. 180:106932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An M, Colarelli SM, O’Brien K, Boyajian ME. 2016. Why we need more nature at work: effects of natural elements and sunlight on employee mental health and work attitudes. PLOS ONE. 11(5):e0155614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASHRAE. 2017. ANSI/ASHRAE standard 55-2017: thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. Atlanta (GA, USA): American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASHRAE. 2019a. ANSI/ASHRAE standard 62.1-2019: ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. Atlanta (GA, USA): American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASHRAE. 2019b. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES standard 90.1-2019: energy standard for buildings except low-rise residential buildings (SI edition). Atlanta (GA, USA): American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES. 2017. ANSI/ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES standard 189.1-2017. Atlanta (GA): American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Aries MBC, Veitch JA, Newsham GR. 2010. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J Environ Psychol. 30(4):533–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASTM International. 2013. ASTM D1003: standard test method for haze and luminous transmittance of transparent plastics. West Conshohocken (PA, USA): ASTM International.
   Google Scholar
• Aston SM, Belichambers HE. 1969. Illumination, colour rendering and visual clarity. Light Res Technol. 1(4):259–261. SAGE Publications. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14771535690010040401.
   Google Scholar
• Baranzini A, Schaerer C. 2011. A sight for sore eyes: assessing the value of view and land use in the housing market. J Hous Econ. 20(3):191–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BCA Green Mark. 2010. Code for environmental sustainability of buildings. 2nd ed. Singapore: Building and Construction Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Bell JAM. 1973. Development and practice in the daylighting of buildings. Light Res Technol. 5(4):173–185. SAGE Publications. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/096032717300500401.
   Google Scholar
• Benfield JA, Rainbolt GN, Bell PA, Donovan GH. 2015. Classrooms with nature views: evidence of differing student perceptions and behaviors. Environ Behav. 47(2):140–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson ED, Hansen JL, Schwart AL Jr., Smersh GT. 1998. Pricing residential amenities: the value of a view. J Real Estate Finance Econ. 16(1):55–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman MG, Jonides J, Kaplan S. 2008. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol Sci. 19(12):1207–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berto R. 2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J Environ Psychol. 25(3):249–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beute F, de Kort YAW. 2013. Let the sun shine! Measuring explicit and implicit preference for environments differing in naturalness, weather type and brightness. J Environ Psychol. 36:162–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beute F, de Kort YAW. 2014. Salutogenic effects of the environment: review of health protective effects of nature and daylight. Appl Psychol Health Well Being 6(1):67–95. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boring EG, Langfeld HS, Weld HP. 1948. Foundations of psychology. New York, NY: J. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bourassa SC, Hoesli M, Sun J. 2004. What’s in a view? Environ Plann A. 36(8):1427–1450. SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a36103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyce P, Hunter C, Howlett O. 2003. The benefits of daylight through windows. Troy (NY): Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; p. 88.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce PR. 1970. The influence of illumination level on prolonged work performance. Light Res Technol. 2(2):74–94.
   Google Scholar
• BRE Global Limited. 2015. BREEAM international new construction 2016. Non-domestic buildings. Hertfordshire (UK): BRE Global Limited. www.bre.co.uk.
   Google Scholar
• BRE Global Limited. 2018. BREEAM UK new construction 2018. Watford (UK): BRE Global Limited. www.breeam.com.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks AM, Ottley KM, Arbuthnott KD, Sevigny P. 2017. Nature-related mood effects: season and type of nature contact. J Environ Psychol. 54:91–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler DL, Biner PM. 1989. Effects of setting on window preferences and factors associated with those preferences. Environ Behav. 21(1):17–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CAGBC. 2010. LEED Canada reference guide for green building design and construction 2009. Ontario (Canada). www.cagbc.org.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge University Press. 2020. View. Cambridge dictionary. [accessed 21 April 2020]. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/view
   Google Scholar
• Carmody J, Selkowitz S, Lee E, Arasteh D, Willmert T. 2004. Window systems for high-performance buildings. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• CEN/TC 169. 2018. European Standard EN 17037: daylight in buildings. Hørsholm (Denmark): European Committee for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• CEN/TC 33. 2008. European Standard EN 14500: blinds and shutters - thermal and visual comfort - test and calculation methods. Brussels (Belgium). [accessed 23 July 2020]. https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/60536/6d62f62dcb9b4483bc4d7c5b8d536b15/oSIST-prEN-14500-2018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cerway. 2014. HQE practical guide environmental performance building under construction. Paris (France). www.behqe.com.
   Google Scholar
• Chichilnisky E-J, Wandell BA. 1995. Photoreceptor sensitivity changes explain color appearance shifts induced by large uniform backgrounds in dichoptic matching. Vision Res. 35(2):239–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinazzo G, Wienold J, Andersen M. 2018. Combined effects of daylight transmitted through coloured glazing and indoor temperature on thermal responses and overall comfort. Build Environ. 144:583–597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clear RD, Inkarojrit V, Lee ES. 2006. Subject responses to electrochromic windows. Energy Build. 38(7):758–779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins BL. 1976. Review of the psychological reaction to windows. Light Res Technol. 8(2):80–88.
   Google Scholar
• Damigos D, Anyfantis F. 2011. The value of view through the eyes of real estate experts: a Fuzzy Delphi approach. Landsc Urban Plan. 101(2):171–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daylight Metrics Committee. 2012. Approved method: IES spatial daylight autonomy (SDA) and annual sunlight exposure (ASE). New York (NY, USA): Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
   Google Scholar
• del Mar Seguí M, Cabrero-García J, Crespo A, Verdú J, Ronda E. 2015. A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J Clin Epidemiol. 68(6):662–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DGBC. 2010. BREEAM-NL 2010 v1.11. Rotterdam (Netherlands): BRE Global Limited. https://www.dgbg.nl.
   Google Scholar
• DGNB GmbH. 2018. DGNB system. Vol. SOC1.4 visual comfort. Stuttgart (Germany): DGNB GmbH. https://www.dgnb-system.de.
   Google Scholar
• DIN. 2011. DIN 5034: daylight in interiors. Berlin (Germany): Deutsches Institut fur Normung E.V. (DIN). https://www.din.de/en/getting-involved/standards-committees/fnl/standards/wdc-beuth:din21:141642928/toc-1815279/download.
   Google Scholar
• Dogrusoy IT, Tureyen M. 2007. A field study on determination of preferences for windows in office environments. Build Environ. 42(10):3660–3668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy S, Verges M. 2010. Forces of nature affect implicit connections with nature. Environ Behav. 42(6):723–739. SAGE Publications Inc. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509338552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ECD Energy & Environment Canada Ltd. 2004. Green globes design for new buildings and retrofits. Toronto (Canada). www.greenglobes.com.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis WD. 2013. A Source Book Of Gestalt Psychology. London (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Emirate of Abu Dhabi. 2010. Pearl rating system: design and construction V1. Abu Dhabi UAE. www.upc.gov.ae.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth DA, Ponce J. 2002. Computer vision: a modern approach. 1 ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Galasiu AD, Veitch JA. 2006. Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy Build. 38(7):728–742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GBC Indonesia. 2012. GREENSHIP new building v1.1. Jakarta (Indonesia). gbcindonesia.org.
   Google Scholar
• GBI. 2009. Green building index v1.0. Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd. www.greenbuildingindex.org.
   Google Scholar
• Gifford R. 1995. Natural psychology: an introduction. J Environ Psychol. 15(3):167–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinde B, Patil GG. 2009. Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 6(9):2332–2343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerhall CM, Laike T, Taylor RP, Küller M, Küller R, Martin TP. 2008. Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception. 37(10):1488–1494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haigh SM, Barningham L, Berntsen M, Coutts LV, Hobbs EST, Irabor J, Lever EM, Tang P, Wilkins AJ. 2013. Discomfort and the cortical haemodynamic response to coloured gratings. Vision Res. 89:47–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy AC, O’Sullivan PE. 1967. Insolation and fenestration: an investigation into the problems of overheating in multi-storey buildings, as a result of solar radiation through large glass areas. Newcastle Upon Tyne (UK): Oriel Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartig T, Böök A, Garvill J, Olsson T, Gärling T. 1996. Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scand J Psychol. 37(4):378–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J Environ Psychol. 23(2):109–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes JR, Sheedy JE, Stelmack JA, Heaney Ca. 2007. Computer use, symptoms, and quality of life. Optometry Vision Sci. 84(8):E738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellinga H, Hordijk T. 2014. The D&V analysis method: a method for the analysis of daylight access and view quality. Build Environ. 79:101–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellinga HI. 2013. Daylight and view: the influence of windows on the visual quality of indoor spaces. [accessed 22 October 2017]. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:2daeb534-9572-4c85-bf8f-308f3f6825fd.
   Google Scholar
• Henning RA, Jacques P, Kissel GV, Sullivan AB, Alteras-Webb SM. 1997. Frequent short rest breaks from computer work: effects on productivity and well-being at two field sites. Ergonomics. 40(1):78–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR. 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. J Environ Psychol. 9(1):27–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR, Chernick KK. 2000. Tranquility and danger in urban and natural settings. J Environ Psychol. 20(1):29–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR, Leverich OL. 2003. Searching for legibility. Environ Behav. 35(4):459–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR, Shier RL. 2016. Complexity, age, and building preference. Environ Behav Sage PublicationsSage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972667.
   Google Scholar
• Heschong Mahone Group. 2003. Windows and offices: a study of office worker performance and the indoor environment. Fair Oaks (California): CEC. [accessed 16 April 2018]. http://h-m-g.com/downloads/Daylighting/A-9_Windows_Offices_2.6.10.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hill AR, Markus TA. 1968. Some factors influencing vision through meshes. Archit Sci Rev. 11(4):123–136.
   Google Scholar
• IGBC. 2011. Green building rating system for new construction and major renovations. Hyderabad (India). www.igbc.in.
   Google Scholar
• IGBC. 2014. IGBC green new buildings rating system v3. www.igbc.in.
   Google Scholar
• IJsselsteijn WA, Oosting W, Vogels IMLC, de Kort YAW, van Loenen E. 2008. A room with a cue: the efficacy of movement parallax, occlusion, and blur in creating a virtual window. Presence. 17(3):269–282.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. 2019. ISO/CIE 11664-4:2019(E) colorimetry — part 4: CIE 1976 L*a*b* colour space. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organisation for Standardization. [accessed 5 November 2019]. http://www.cie.co.at/publications/colorimetry-part-4-cie-1976-lab-colour-space-1
   Google Scholar
• IWBS. 2019. WELL building standard V2-pilot. [accessed 11 November 2018]. https://www.wellcertified.com/resources.
   Google Scholar
• IWBS. 2020. WELL building standard V2. [accessed 1 October 2020]. https://a.storyblok.com/f/52232/x/36d47d3797/well-certification-guidebook-with-q2-2020-addenda.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jamrozik A, Clements N, Hasan SS, Zhao J, Zhang R, Campanella C, Loftness V, Porter P, Ly S, Wang S, et al. 2019. Access to daylight and view in an office improves cognitive performance and satisfaction and reduces eyestrain: a controlled crossover study. Build Environ. 165:106379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juricevic I, Land L, Wilkins A, Webster MA. 2010. Visual discomfort and natural image statistics. Perception. 39(7):884–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R. 1993. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landsc Urban Plan. 26(1):193–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. 1 ed. Cambridge (New York): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environ Behav. 19(1):3–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keighley EC. 1973a. Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in offices — a study of multiple apertures and window area. Build Sci. 8(4):321–331.
   Google Scholar
• Keighley EC. 1973b. Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in office buildings — a study of window shape. Build Sci. 8(4):311–320.
   Google Scholar
• Kent M, Schiavon S. 2020a. Evaluation of the effect of landscape distance seen in window views on visual satisfaction. Build Environ. 183:107160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MG, Schiavon S. 2020b. Evaluation of the effect of landscape distance seen in window views on visual satisfaction. Build Environ. (In Press) 183:107160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kfir IZ, Munemoto J, Sacko O, Kawasaki Y. 2002. Evaluation of the view from the dwelling units on man-made islands in Osaka Bay : multiple regression analysis based on residents’ evaluation and image processing of photographs taken from the living room. J Archit Plann. 67(554):357–364.
   Google Scholar
• Kim JT, Kim G. 2010. Advanced external shading device to maximize visual and view performance. Indoor Built Environ. 19(1):65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, Robinson JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P, Behar JV, Hern SC, Engelmann WH. 2001. The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 11(3):231–252.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ko WH, Brager G, Schiavon S, Selkowitz S. 2017. Building envelope impact on human performance and well-being: experimental study on view clarity. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0gj8h384.
   Google Scholar
• Ko WH, Schiavon S, Brager G, Levitt B. 2018. Ventilation, thermal and luminous autonomy metrics for an integrated design process. Build Environ. 145:153–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko WH, Schiavon S, Zhang H, Graham LT, Brager G, Mauss I, Lin Y-W. 2020. The impact of a view from a window on thermal comfort, emotion, and cognitive performance. Build Environ. 175:106779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konis K. 2013. Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco, California. Build Environ. 59:662–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konstantzos I, Chan Y-C, Seibold JC, Tzempelikos A, Proctor RW, Protzman JB. 2015. View clarity index: a new metric to evaluate clarity of view through window shades. Build Environ. 90:206–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konstantzos I, Tzempelikos A. 2017. A holistic approach for improving visual environment in private offices. Procedia Environ Sci. 38:372–380.
   Google Scholar
• Küller R, Lindsten C. 1992. Health and behavior of children in classrooms with and without windows. J Environ Psychol. 12(4):305–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li W, Samuelson H. 2020. A new method for visualizing and evaluating views in architectural design. Dev Built Environ. 1:100005.
   Google Scholar
• Liang R, Kent M, Wilson R, Wu Y. 2021. The effect of thermochromic windows on visual performance and sustained attention. Energy Build. 236:110778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littlefair PJ. 2011. Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice. Bracknell (UK): IHS - BRE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ludlow AM. 1976. The functions of windows in buildings. Light Res Technol. 8(2):57–68.
   Google Scholar
• Magistrale T, Di L. 2014. Impact of window amount and size on user perception, daylighting and energy demand in an office space. Universita Degli Studi Di Pavoda. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/20343407.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mardaljevic J. 2019. Aperture-based daylight modelling: introducing the ‘View Lumen.’ Loughborough University. [accessed 1 June 2020]. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Aperture-based_daylight_modelling_Introducing_the_View_Lumen_/9458474.
   Google Scholar
• Marino C, Nucara A, Pietrafesa M. 2017. Does window-to-wall ratio have a significant effect on the energy consumption of buildings? A parametric analysis in Italian climate conditions. J Build Eng. 13:169–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus TA. 1967. The function of windows— a reappraisal. Build Sci. 2(2):97–121.
   Google Scholar
• Matusiak BS, Klöckner CA. 2016. How we evaluate the view out through the window. Archit Sci Rev. 59(3):203–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milosavljevic M, Navalpakkam V, Koch C, Rangel A. 2012. Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. J Consum Psychol. 22(1):67–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MOHRUD. 2014. GB/T 50378-2014 assessment standard for green building. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, China. [accessed 28 May 2020]. https://www.codeofchina.com/standard/GBT50378-2014.html.
   Google Scholar
• Mulpuri R. 2020 May 22. Your window blinds are depriving you of sleep. Thrive Global. [accessed 25 May 2020]. https://thriveglobal.com/stories/your-window-blinds-are-depriving-you-of-sleep/.
   Google Scholar
• Musselwhite C. 2018. The importance of a room with a view for older people with limited mobility. Qual Ageing Older Adults. 19(4):273–285. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/QAOA-01-2018-0003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ne’Eman E, Hopkinson RG. 1970. Critical minimum acceptable window size: a study of window design and provision of a view. Light Res Technol. 2(1):17–27.
   Google Scholar
• NGBC. 2016. BREEAM-NOR new construction 2016 v1.1. Oslo (Norway): BRE Global Limited. www.ngbc.no.
   Google Scholar
• NZGBC. 2014. Green star office design and built 2009. Auckland (New Zealand): New Zealand Green Building Council. www.nzgbc.org.nz.
   Google Scholar
• NZGBC. 2016. Green star V3.1. Auckland (New Zealand): New Zealand Green Building Council. www.nzgbc.org.nz.
   Google Scholar
• Ochoa CE, Aries MBC, van Loenen EJ, Hensen JLM. 2012. Considerations on design optimization criteria for windows providing low energy consumption and high visual comfort. Appl Energy. 95:238–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldham GR, Rotchford NL. 1983. Relationships between office characteristics and employee reactions: a study of the physical environment. Adm Sci Q. 28(4):542–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olszewska-Guizzo A, Escoffier N, Chan J, Puay Yok T. 2018. Window view and the brain: effects of floor level and green cover on the alpha and beta rhythms in a passive exposure EEG experiment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 15(11):2358. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orquin JL, Mueller Loose S. 2013. Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychol. 144(1):190–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdemir A. 2010. The effect of window views openness and naturalness on the perception of rooms spaciousness and brightness: a visual preference study. Sci Res Essays. 5(16):2275–2287.
   Google Scholar
• Pelli D, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. 1988. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci. 2(3):187–199.
   Google Scholar
• PHILGBC. 2017. BERDE GBRS - new construction v2.0.0.Taguig City (Philippines). http://philgbc.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Purup PB, Jensen SR, Petersen S, Kirkegaard PH. 2017. Towards a holistic approach to low-energy building design: consequences of metrics for evaluation of spatial quality on design. Design to thrive, presented at the passive and low energy architecture (PLEA), Edinburgh. p. 8.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart C, Voss K. 2003. Monitoring manual control of electric lighting and blinds. Light Res Technol. 35(3):243–258.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart CF, Mardaljevic J, Rogers Z. 2006. Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos. 3(1):7–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roessler G. 1980. The psychological function of windows for the visual communication between the interior of rooms with permanent supplementary artificial lighting and the exterior. Light Res Technol. 12(3):160–168. SAGE Publications. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/096032718001200306.
   Google Scholar
• SLL. 2014. Lighting guide 10: daylighting - a guide for designers. London (United Kingdom): Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
   Google Scholar
• Stamps AE. 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol. 24(1):1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone NJ, Irvine JM. 1994. Direct or indirect window access, task type, and performance. J Environ Psychol. 14(1):57–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y, Wu Y, Wilson R. 2018. A review of thermal and optical characterisation of complex window systems and their building performance prediction. Appl Energy. 222:729–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom E, Town JP, Brown DW, Forman A, Mcgee C. 1982. Physical enclosure, type of job, and privacy in the office. Environ Behav. 14(5):543–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tregenza P, Wilson M. 2013. Daylighting: architecture and lighting design. London (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR. 2007. View and discomfort glare from windows. Light Res Technol. 39(2):185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turan I, Reinhart C, Kocher M. 2019. Evaluating spatially-distributed views in open plan work spaces. Building simulation 2019, presented at the 16th Conference of IBPSA. p. 9.
   Google Scholar
• Tzempelikos A, Athienitis AK. 2007. The impact of shading design and control on building cooling and lighting demand. Sol Energy. 81(3):369–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environ Behav. 13(5):523–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 224(4647):420–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 11(3):201–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• USGBC. 2019. LEED v4 for building design and construction. Washington (DC, USA): USGBC. [accessed 8 September 2017]. http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-building-design-and-construction-current-version.
   Google Scholar
• USGBC. 2020. EQ credit: quality views. p. 144.
   Google Scholar
• van den Berg AE, Koole SL, van der Wulp NY. 2003. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? J Environ Psychol. 23(2):135–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zoest W, Donk M, Theeuwes J. 2004. The role of stimulus-driven and goal-driven control in saccadic visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 30(4):746–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veitch JA, Galasiu AD. 2012. The physiological and psychological effects of windows, daylight, and view at home: review and research agenda: (554552013-001). American Psychological Association. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/e554552013-001.
   Google Scholar
• Velarde MD, Fry G, Tveit M. 2007. Health effects of viewing landscapes – landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For Urban Greening. 6(4):199–212.
   Google Scholar
• Waczynska M, Sokol N, Martyniuk-Peczek J. 2020. Computational and experimental evaluation of view out according to European Standard EN17037. Build Environ. 188:107414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White M, Smith A, Humphryes K, Pahl S, Snelling D, Depledge M. 2010. Blue space: the importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J Environ Psychol. 30(4):482–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins A. 2016. A physiological basis for visual discomfort: application in lighting design. Light Res Technol. 48(1):44–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MP. 2005. Comment 2 on ‘Discomfort glare from interesting images’ by N Tuaycharoen and P Tregenza:. Light Res Technol. 37(4):339–340.
   Google Scholar
• Yamín Garretón J, Villalba AM, Rodriguez RG, Pattini A. 2021. Roller blinds characterization assessing discomfort glare, view outside and useful daylight illuminance with the sun in the field of view. Sol Energy. 213:91–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yildirim K, Akalin-Baskaya A, Celebi M. 2007. The effects of window proximity, partition height, and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices. J Environ Psychol. 27(2):154–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanon S, Callegaro N, Albatici R. 2019. A novel approach for the definition of an integrated visual quality index for residential buildings. Appl Sci. 9(8):1579. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/app9081579.
   Google Scholar