Basic HTML Version
NORDIC LIGHT & COLOUR
133
Why the color rendering capabilities are present on some of
the packages above anyway is however not explained this way.
Moreover, the symbols that actually are present sometimes
differ from brand to brand as can be seen from the picture
samples.
These many inconsistent nuances in both measurement as-
sumptions/requirements and information given in guides and
packages make it very difficult to navigate, not least in terms of
color rendering. So even though some pamphlets and guides
may point to the need for the user being aware of the Ra index,
this may not be sufficient and may even be enforcing the confu-
sion, as the contextual aspects needed to understand the Ra
value, such as for instance spectral distributions, are not fully
presented in any of the pamphlets. However if they were, would
it then actually help the consumer to understand and evaluate
light?
Summing up: Why the de-contextualized information? And is it
adequate?
There may be various reasons why DEST has decided to de-
velop pamphlets and guides for particularly private consumers
to be able navigating amongst the various lighting technologies
for domestic use. One obvious explanation is the increasing
political attention to energy efficiency, and the established
European Eco-design Directive that applies for energy using
products including lighting. As a public body under the Danish
ministry of climate, energy and building, DEST will be interest-
ed in facilitating energy efficient domestic lighting, particularly
in terms of costs and ‘best fit’ solutions. The increasing focus
on technical aspects and presentations may, as mentioned, be
due to the conception of a technical or scientific language bet-
ter facilitating a ‘neutral’, ‘best’ choice. This would be much in
line with the line of thought behind the concept of ‘the rational
actor’ that to a large extent still influence much policy mak-
ing (Machnagthen and Urry, 1998); informing the consumer
will help them make the optimal choice. However, it does not
agree with what another strand of theory within understand-
ing consumption claims; namely that the consumption (of
energy) in itself does not make sense for the consumer, but
that it is the practice around the consuming act that is mean-
ingful (e.g. Røpke, 2009). As an example, inviting someone for
dinner has a social meaning, and consuming energy (light) is
merely a means of obtaining the right atmosphere, or setting
an intimate scene of light above the dinner table. This point to
the earlier versions of the pamphlets perhaps being more ‘on
track’ in terms of what the consumer would relate to when
choosing or even thinking about lighting within the home.
Relating to requiring a certain type of light for certain practices
within the home would presumably be more meaningful for the
consumer, than reading about various technical and something
abstract functions and dimensions of the technology behind a
given light source.
The increasing focus on technical and scientific aspects thus
corresponds very well to paradigms of economics and psychol-
ogy still being dominating much policy making, which often
result in a ‘attitude, behavior and change’ kind of approach to
societal change (Shove, 2010). In other words, assumptions
such as ‘the rational actor’ dominate policymaking, and public
bodies are seeking to involve people to contribute to a more
sustainable future mainly be focusing on ‘informing the con-
sumer’ (Machnagthen and Urry, 1998). The pamphlets ‘inform
the consumers’ about the best choices, the ‘right’ lighting tech-
nology for the ‘right’ situations. But does it help the consumer?
People living with light
In a study I have done elsewhere (Jensen et al, 2012) a number
of people were interviewed about the light in their homes. The
interviews were conducted in the homes, touring the various
rooms, discussing light and lighting situations in each of them.
The interviewees mostly talk about the atmosphere of the light
and refer to the systems to which they are used to, eg. dimma-
ble incandescent light, and they talk about the ‘strength’ of light
in terms of wattage and not lumen. For the interviewees, light-
ing seems mainly to be about creating light zones fitting the
mood or the functionality of the particular areas and activities
around the house. No one mentions color rendering capabili-
ties directly, however the color temperature (Kelvin) is often re-
ferred to, yet without mentioning the Kelvin scale and mainly as
‘the color of the light’. It basically seems to be about what kind
of light one is used to, and halogen spots are often referred
to as the ‘normal’ hallway and bathroom lighting, however
without explaining why this is considered ‘normal’. This seems
to infer that there are
implicit aspects
connected to
illuminating
the home that are hard to explicate
. The energy-aspect is often
mentioned, however it does not appear to be a very important
criterion when looking into what kind of bulbs that are actually
installed in the various homes. To a large extent, the homes are
lit with halogen spots, and in some cases incandescent bulbs
had been hoarded. The compact fluorescent bulbs are also rep-
resented, but are often criticized and seemingly installed due to
lack of alternatives. Thet often installed in areas deemed less
important (utility rooms) or in children’s rooms, because the
‘children forget to turn of the light’. Basically, the interviewed
residents have no particular technical language when talk-
ing about the light sources, and only very few seem to have an
obvious interest in lighting technology. The interviewees mainly
use terms such as ‘nice’ and ‘comfortable’ light. It is significant
to note that this is in spite of the pamphlets that are publicly
available information. However it mirrors Shove’s (2010) cri-
tique of the rational-actor assumption’s leverage in policy, and