Human-centric lighting: Myth, magic or metaphor?

This paper discusses the rise of human-centric lighting and its current status in lighting. We summarise the human benefits associated with light and lighting and show that human-centric lighting has sound motivations, despite being tainted by misleading marketing claims. The phrase integrative lighting avoids the hype and encapsulates what lighting aspires to be. Embodied in these concepts are some things old and some things new. The old is twofold. First, without diminishing the value of lighting products, the core ingredient for good human outcomes is good design, driven by a design team. Second, light is still for vision, and lighting for visibility, visual comfort and visual amenity is as important as ever. Complementing the old is new awareness and responsibility for how light and lighting influence non-visual responses in humans. Circadian, neuroendocrine and neurobehavioural responses are important for human health and should be considered on-par with visual responses. This awareness leads toward lighting design solutions with increased contrast between day and night. The parties responsible for addressing non-visual responses to light and lighting are evolving. Architects, lighting professionals, lighting equipment manufacturers, medical professionals, building owners and individuals all have a stake, but who should drive decisions and in what proportion?

Wind Energy and Adverse Visual-Impact Litigation: A Balance of Global and Local Interests?

Wind energy is one of the world’s fastest growing forms of energy. It has many advantages over traditional forms of energy. However, visual impact is a disadvantage. Although planning applications for wind-farm developments are on the rise worldwide, the visual impact of potential developments repeatedly provokes opposition to new wind-farm projects. Litigation aimed at enjoining the construction of wind-energy facilities can slow wind-energy development and increase its cost. This article takes a comparative approach to such visual-impact litigation, looking at cases from Australia, New Zealand, and England in order to understand why planning cases are much more likely to succeed in some jurisdictions than others. I argue that in some jurisdictions decision-makers and courts are impliedly prioritizing the global, national, and local interests in favour of wind-farm development over the national and local interests in favour of landscape and visual-amenity protection.