6.1. Discussion

The purpose of this section is to discuss the limitations and aspects of the project that could have been conducted in a different manner and to what extent the research question was answered through the project. The discussion will be structured around the criteria presented in this report and to what extent the suggested solution meets the criteria. Since the characteristics of this academic project, which is not intended to be placed on the site in real life, it is not possible to give a conclusive answer to the question. In order to determine whether the premise of creating a lively space in the Langeliniekaj was achieved or not, it would be necessary to implement the lighting design proposed on the site. With the design implemented, it could be possible to carry out a new analysis and observations to determine if the affluence of people is increased and new activities start to take place on the site. Corroboration for this argument could be made using examples similar to the proposed design, nevertheless, it would still be an assumption, not comparable with implementation and analysis of the proposal.

Regarding the test performed in a controlled environment, it was possible to answer the hypothesis formulated and determine the CCT values necessary to complete the design and create communication in the space, since people will be able to perceive the variation between the different correlated colour temperatures. However, it could be needed to perform a new test, on-site or in a site with similar characteristics to Langeliniekajen, since some variables as the spectral distribution of the light sources and the reflectance of the materials can change the perception of users. Despite this fact, we can infer that the criterion “Interactive lighting for communication” was followed successfully. Additionally, a larger difference between CCT values could improve the communication, but being this an academic research-based project, it was understood it could be more valuable finding the minimum values where people can perceive the variation.

Concerning the second criterion “Integrated lighting for revealing the architecture”, it was met, since the luminaries chosen are integrated into the architecture and the elements present in the site. In the case of the bollards used for the street in the pier, even they are not properly integrated into the architecture, they present a low height and inconspicuous design to be the less noticeable possible. Furthermore, this contributes to meet the target number 11.4 from the UN (United Nations) Sustainable Development Goals about safeguarding the cultural heritage.

Respecting our criterion “Responsible outdoor lighting for preserving dark sky”, the five principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting designed by the Dark-Sky Association were followed, but since they are qualitative and no quantitative guidelines, they cannot be measured to understand to what extent those principles were satisfied. In addition, some decisions were taken to achieve the target number 7.3 from the Sustainable Development Goals, regarding energy efficiency. However, the power consumption per hour (kWh) was not calculated. The information about the current light sources was scarce, therefore a comparison was not done either. However, due to some design decisions like the height of the luminaires, the targeted use of them and the low lighting levels; together with the technology used (LED) and the possibility of dimmed down depending on the time, can be inferred that the energy efficiency is high.