Dienst van SURF
© 2025 SURF
Health symptoms may be influenced, supported, or even controlled via a lighting control system which includes personal lighting conditions and personal factors (health characteristics). In order to be effective, this lighting control system requires both continuous information on the lighting and health conditions at the individual level. A new practical method to determine these continuous personal lighting conditions has been developed: location-bound estimations (LBE). This method was validated in the field in two case studies; comparisons were made between the LBE and location-bound measurements (LBM) in case study 1 and between the LBE and person-bound measurements (PBM) in case study 2. Overall, the relative deviation between the LBE and LBM was less than 15%, whereas the relative deviation between the LBE and PBM was 32.9% in the best-case situation. The relative deviation depends on inaccuracies in both methods (i.e., LBE and PBM) and needs further research. Adding more input parameters to the predictive model (LBE) will improve the accuracy of the LBE. The proposed first approach of the LBE is not without limitations; however, it is expected that this practical method will be a pragmatic approach of inserting personal lighting conditions into lighting control systems.
Presentation of the progress and future outlook of the chitin valorisation project at the annual DAS Conference, Utrecht.
In this paper validity and compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments are the central themes. A screening instrument can be called valid if it identifies performance that is important to society. A screening instrument is called compatible if these instruments can be used interchangeably. Validity The outcome of the content-analysis approach suggest that there is clearly not a perfect match between the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF, indicating that the SAM and KLD screening instruments taken the CSAF as the standard, cannot be called valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. However, as discussed earlier, assessing validity is not a binary phenomenon. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will not do. To make things more complicated, the validity of a measure also depends on the aggregation level under observation. It makes a big difference if validity is assessed at a high (i.e. Dimension) or low aggregation (i.e. Sustainability Item) level . At the highest level there is a perfect match with the CSAF, indicating that both screening instruments are valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. At the lowest level the situation is quite different. Here we see that overlap is relatively poor. Besides, the weight distributions of the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF are also largely dissimilar. When we break the validity discussion down to the Dimension level, we can see that overlap between the SAM and KLD instruments is also relatively poor, although the SAM instrument is slightly more attuned to the CSAF than the KLD instrument. This most notably applies to the Governance Dimension. The SAM instrument scores relatively poor on environmental issues. This is due to the fact that we analyzed the generic (i.e. non-industry specific) screening instrument. SAM typically addresses environmental issues in industry specific supplements. CompatibilityThe second question in this study concerns the compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments. Or more accurately phrased: the extent to which these rating schemes are compatible. If we would consider compatibility assessment of screening instruments as a binary phenomenon, then we should conclude that the SAM and KLD instruments are not compatible.However, just like validity, assessing the compatibility of screening instruments is not a binary phenomenon. The extent to which the rating schemes of the two SRAs are compatible relates to the aggregation level. At the highest aggregation ( or Dimension) level the screening instruments are perfectly compatible. Both instruments cover governance, social, environmental and economic issues. At the lowest (or Sustainability Item) level the situation is quite different. At this level compatibility of both instruments is poor. Overlap is poor and the weight distributions are hardly correlated. Obviously both instruments are reflect different interpretations of corporate sustainability performance. Compatibility is highest for the Social Dimension. For the Governance, Environment and Economic Dimension compatibility is very poor. The overall conclusion should therefore be that that compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments is (very) poor and that for this reason these instruments cannot
LINK