January 20, 2026
Study Reframes Lighting Quality: Framework, Feel and Finance
Research offers structured, weighted criteria for real-world evaluation of lighting systems
Lighting people talk a lot about quality—but rarely get a tool to measure it across human and financial terms. A 2025 study out of Jhargram Government Medical College and Hospital (JGMCH) in India and published in Energy & Buildings brings something different to the table: a structured, quantifiable framework that evaluates lighting systems not just by lux or watts, but by how they feel, how they stimulate the circadian system, and how they affect the bottom line.
Developed and tested in real classroom environments, the JGMCH Lighting Assessment Framework combines three weighted rubrics:
- Energy Efficiency and Financial Aspects (40%)
- Visual and Non-Visual Effects (30%)
- Occupants’ Perception and Comfort (30%)
This 40/30/30 model makes room for metrics often sidelined in typical specs—including melanopic EDI, circadian stimulus, color rendering (Ra and R9), and subjective comfort scores collected directly from students. The study’s methodology leaned on the Delphi method for expert consensus and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to assign weight—bringing both rigor and pragmatism to a space usually dominated by either subjective preference or raw utility data.
Researchers evaluated legacy incandescent and fluorescent systems alongside five LED configurations in actual classrooms and lecture halls. Unsurprisingly, LEDs outperformed—but the framework, not the outcome, is what matters. It offers a replicable way to evaluate tradeoffs lighting people navigate every day, in real buildings, with real constraints.
“The LED downlight- based indoor lighting system of the model lecture theatre with a CCT of 4816K and a good CRI of almost 80 obtained the highest composite score (4.00) and the highest score under the OPC rubric (4.61) and in light of this, it can be posited that LED-based indoor lighting systems with CCTs around 4800K may be commissioned for enhancing students’ visual comfort and satisfaction in a classroom setting which could be propitious to academic prosperity.”
The study has limitations worth noting: it evaluated just two spaces in a single Indian medical college, and the weighting structure—while methodologically sound—reflects that specific context and those experts’ priorities. Lighting people working in North American commercial or institutional environments would need to adapt both the criteria and the scoring to fit their own user needs and regulatory baselines. Still, as a starting point for structured evaluation, it bridges the gap between subjective comfort claims and pure energy metrics.
