6.2.2. Common Areas

The second kind of scenario selected was common areas. In this case we focused the evaluation on different corridors of the same building with a large influx of users because they connect areas such as coffee shops and classrooms.

To select the specific scenarios to evaluate, a new survey for the users of the building was also performed. This survey asked them about the lighting conditions of different halls of the building and if they thought that their level of light could be improved to achieve a better lighting quality. From the answers of the survey, 10 cases in which users thought that the lighting conditions could be improved were selected.

After checking the scenarios with the developed application, the results were divided once again into three different groups: places with a correct level of light, places with excess light, and places with a lack of light. Table 3 shows the number of cases selected for each.


**Table 3.** Lighting evaluation on common areas.

In this case, 40% of the evaluated cases had a level of lighting that was in compliance with the standards, even when the users thought that the lighting conditions could be improved. On the other hand, the rest of the evaluated cases showed a problem with lighting, where 40% had a lack of light and the other 20% had an excess of light. In cases where the application detected that the lighting requirements did not comply with the lighting regulations, the same corrections as for the office's study were adopted.

After a few days to correct the lighting problems, a new survey between the installation users was conducted to analyze the user satisfaction with the lighting changes. When they were asked if they could detect the changes in lighting conditions, 50% of the respondents claimed that they could detect the difference in the lighting level of their workspaces. Therefore, they were asked about the feeling of improvement of the lighting quality, and only 25% of the respondents said that the feeling was that the lighting conditions had been improved. The most interesting point is that, in areas with an excess of lighting, there was no feeling of improvement of the lighting. This could have happened due to, in most cases, the perception of a lower level of light in common areas being associated with a feeling of insecurity.
