<%BANNER%>

University students' perceptions of lighting and preferences for the setting and social arrangements in contrasting dini...

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101124_AAAABP INGEST_TIME 2010-11-24T16:41:17Z PACKAGE UFE0011461_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2862 DFID F20101124_AABMSS ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH sutherin_h_Page_096thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
c5ec2ac22db33291ff8a33d9d1a40b6d
SHA-1
321302da5ebcbe1fcbfcaf4e7ab741b210b3d292
24334 F20101124_AABMTH sutherin_h_Page_081.QC.jpg
35c00220926f36796b58d0b02dc57131
40a842536f4a52485c28a5f92a5eace5d6a7ef86
5222 F20101124_AABMST sutherin_h_Page_008.QC.jpg
3f8bf2c53ecdcad93c26e3fc2ab34c1c
ec3a8c1aca1f412a1f3940807fa0bf70fc148d05
5498 F20101124_AABMTI sutherin_h_Page_037thm.jpg
6597e6416d966630b377b3bfe7af47ba
6681b39f5c1074198d636db7fe27f2dd94d8b729
23581 F20101124_AABMSU sutherin_h_Page_077.QC.jpg
ad8dfaaaecdc0768f7413d126b406817
3d7cfb1228a51189bcabcb0265d1f4839794ec8e
6655 F20101124_AABMTJ sutherin_h_Page_058thm.jpg
f64d759cf0e7eee50eb48498f201cf26
765266f8e01d3b4bb2d676a6e1bb9d864f3dff2c
5269 F20101124_AABMSV sutherin_h_Page_067thm.jpg
414f493dde5be7a959454de2e1f4481c
3adeff81cd39786cfa25133118e093102d470471
24398 F20101124_AABMTK sutherin_h_Page_044.QC.jpg
ad6deae6d93ae2a8886d510e87abec51
4131a437db93048e195b3f58a063bccba35a84e3
6000 F20101124_AABMSW sutherin_h_Page_070thm.jpg
e6fdc2c4fd088ef5bef3d371b2800a3f
8f5632644a0769e9e9bb835543f0577adf923b09
9581 F20101124_AABMTL sutherin_h_Page_094.QC.jpg
50dcd4f4ce8c4a13eba6324d0ff2a87c
b38a04c22dae869d8af46fd2ede877f37d36b869
8087 F20101124_AABMSX sutherin_h_Page_001.QC.jpg
92a8a110f511c1ff8aae00f015cde963
d38464e28f056bd14780afcf3dc2eba10dce77df
6426 F20101124_AABMUA sutherin_h_Page_013thm.jpg
8cbfde7a6a2755d74ac140f41fccadf3
5fb21dc9cd993047e929159e9cd657af69632f17
6502 F20101124_AABMTM sutherin_h_Page_028thm.jpg
5588d8ae5f83caf89fb564d16b9760a9
c641f5a232ea64550d5aca491f577ad469a6e197
23745 F20101124_AABMSY sutherin_h_Page_075.QC.jpg
cc067c677b3431b56f838c5718c018ef
62c1ff6b64f2be4849b0f176a8e4f54a4c7b9648
5933 F20101124_AABMUB sutherin_h_Page_071thm.jpg
81b4a3ba12966eabe51ed699e76611a0
cce8c6db6cbc380bf7f0791602ae8698d77bf421
6650 F20101124_AABMTN sutherin_h_Page_044thm.jpg
226b8e3e9b922a91f95b5946df5ee912
7e3bc4522dbedb5180d2c0c8090f69f514fada93
5893 F20101124_AABMSZ sutherin_h_Page_073thm.jpg
790a33f6e298259007cc9ca80a41c9da
9650da0aa76e0da635e64c693a4dc6d8420aac08
6429 F20101124_AABMUC sutherin_h_Page_029thm.jpg
d04800e37cda6d29dedb5015fa2aeca5
683952b879803e214c56ca9ad34b3c5e89f9cc66
21926 F20101124_AABMUD sutherin_h_Page_054.QC.jpg
2089f3303348329ea05d5f6c91df2b7c
97404077ed1d15534ef20e6732c3c8fc51419351
22697 F20101124_AABMTO sutherin_h_Page_022.QC.jpg
634ee2c9237c4892582e2a9f4253568e
2866b9c65d67ed1647e9f55541cffa7d16dad8c1
5830 F20101124_AABMUE sutherin_h_Page_035thm.jpg
2299a278df9d0444927e9f1d21924dbc
685e957150ab50e98ff41e9b5a9da8e35fe4cace
4878 F20101124_AABMTP sutherin_h_Page_112thm.jpg
c8aa6096f6e0f45eac6d2638ef11fbc8
d55f9bba8539e6c3709ea7300a63ce0496ede49e
6495 F20101124_AABMUF sutherin_h_Page_064thm.jpg
def7c68d214fef45d6ee2be15224e192
e5f65468d77b61a326b8701834b8f982c258bb18
4392 F20101124_AABMTQ sutherin_h_Page_092thm.jpg
1b281d5a46e966a21ad72cd04d579d5f
4786486514ec96147c169b5e98169da1932c3dd9
6472 F20101124_AABMUG sutherin_h_Page_024thm.jpg
66a319a13d865e702154a5080e0127ae
25cd3c4636fa627737799f0a9c4e5d709bcfc4ee
18711 F20101124_AABMTR sutherin_h_Page_097.QC.jpg
99bebeb20abed0fbc721d19e5c3ff07a
c79eb097e851b22a82146c604030ebb342954e99
22095 F20101124_AABMUH sutherin_h_Page_033.QC.jpg
4005dea8abee25120ad31eff4716ce80
2566047405ef64ee3ffdf413582351b3d3ab5cbe
6811 F20101124_AABMTS sutherin_h_Page_110thm.jpg
1f4d16d9ef377900182691e162059623
248d9d8457ed4069a3b5379d54c48275f3bc4224
6390 F20101124_AABMUI sutherin_h_Page_076thm.jpg
169e612f2b5c4fb563bd75659f8d98d4
e60342b140d9b69bfbda9c7197b1da00165e42c8
6454 F20101124_AABMTT sutherin_h_Page_054thm.jpg
fb2f81a7e7e387e698006e5b93d24a1a
ed9657643b431bab80dbb8daa55ede07d7b39121
4328 F20101124_AABMUJ sutherin_h_Page_111thm.jpg
f1a5b2803fb1d084289c681825f3e33b
5c1df87dc5b23c00938107742d2163ebb297c48c
5256 F20101124_AABMTU sutherin_h_Page_056thm.jpg
63a8845b6c9e769bd67b22f2c7172150
ddb2e48c12fe6b99ceee761061d4303d5a0c1acb
2060 F20101124_AABLRI sutherin_h_Page_044.txt
a573a8475a47f4a2f73df904cbff1989
18ecc2e3efa565ee8ecd2764d4575dace38d50bc
16105 F20101124_AABMUK sutherin_h_Page_060.QC.jpg
c795815c0ffaedff6d4390646b723270
e543a84400d07913ac4ea1f57f5e95b6cd86f565
22427 F20101124_AABMTV sutherin_h_Page_040.QC.jpg
4321cdd1f3a62bc3d71b99c4deba0f45
30a06c771bd820462ac12df1fd65f2c7bc57cc08
106944 F20101124_AABLRJ sutherin_h_Page_055.jp2
c15bf99a3eaf0ebbea27f5ce9c37cb43
92eb0769255fd3669b3b0da8f208e91154b1dfb5
5658 F20101124_AABMUL sutherin_h_Page_012thm.jpg
6713726513793799a671f48843c0c5c5
907576d7b74177e8a98037c0d12ab7d7af258dcf
10630 F20101124_AABMTW sutherin_h_Page_105.QC.jpg
bd9201b72e4794eac2b7c231bdb9305a
825afee8ae55c646412c0e38a6cf1e0c97f33ff8
22547 F20101124_AABMVA sutherin_h_Page_038.QC.jpg
ae16fd264724fce08136ac55ba37db5d
63f0a75f95432ed5d5cab05105de8520ae350774
20086 F20101124_AABLRK sutherin_h_Page_012.QC.jpg
89473c571aec4d213040a3442c762d5f
bd8aa74a993713f24425434ee5dc8aa8e45d6034
5895 F20101124_AABMUM sutherin_h_Page_019thm.jpg
41915c70698363379eb7d6f571e837b0
860fe5fb825ed75d6f8ec96c04a68fcb7c485fe4
15601 F20101124_AABMTX sutherin_h_Page_005.QC.jpg
336d30fabc45646dfc251ca66d9f87ee
d06f6e28155054e76e2e3c53657acc59df4a29b2
6591 F20101124_AABMVB sutherin_h_Page_040thm.jpg
0c2b25341e4aadcfa394389d34c9c889
372ced297407d1e5fe5cb98f1d6ebc2bb576ac6a
282 F20101124_AABLRL sutherin_h_Page_095.txt
c5a427dcbd3839691fed77aec08dd78d
c0276955d771da92df7db9f205bf7df195cb3b91
4817 F20101124_AABMUN sutherin_h_Page_061thm.jpg
285cd6355d2bf42800fb51d114e5a93e
fdfcf279525e14561f1d9458fdaee1b64fcac4fb
22906 F20101124_AABMTY sutherin_h_Page_079.QC.jpg
8d5c5ee796a477be0cdb5f21f8f21146
471b7d960fa3436a58e0e4c7431d3bd1c64a144e
24782 F20101124_AABLSA sutherin_h_Page_021.QC.jpg
cfda5a5f0ac80868f24fb40009bbe675
49bb7d67c3403fa400b0a40a27669b3608bfc728
24842 F20101124_AABMVC sutherin_h_Page_041.QC.jpg
bc5ca16cb0c7b2ae9e3b22d1f811488b
83d8b0ab7ee0ded5dce073606c774cff4a445e5f
73482 F20101124_AABLRM sutherin_h_Page_077.jpg
cb69342518385ed6a688e9188c9c6211
f7396a9226e51961bd8e478a83f2f341ee9550be
3301 F20101124_AABMUO sutherin_h_Page_105thm.jpg
3697ab0b658013f9faef75688f264016
bfa0c52bb38b975c47e2194d679b464b486d8738
4519 F20101124_AABMTZ sutherin_h_Page_091thm.jpg
ad192116d854a05e9a4c9fa81a6225ef
1ab3bde281d123581a550dd2a5e050e92a299933
1053954 F20101124_AABLSB sutherin_h_Page_104.tif
bbc387f537641da0dd854f23747fb08c
4009dc798fbb460c0de4e6454ad7af20467fa3c1
18032 F20101124_AABMVD sutherin_h_Page_042.QC.jpg
f7db3b89cecee8d0fe97f592b2397829
2f2f79a9df9cc8064002396662ec48d4226d7341
1533 F20101124_AABLSC sutherin_h_Page_058.txt
79946fddf27b7314811ec8b9a6b682b4
4bdea74417117d7eb83a4166a009339ae7bfe8a2
22487 F20101124_AABMVE sutherin_h_Page_045.QC.jpg
30b5ce24bab38ce5685afa052083ab03
7e679d9669be5643d131267bbb0cd02b94db69cb
1719 F20101124_AABLRN sutherin_h_Page_003.pro
4c66cf397f86693592a098c34e7bfdcc
6aeeff91d99c3b03ad9f7c3b1f661fed5e6db846
22245 F20101124_AABMUP sutherin_h_Page_051.QC.jpg
f992560fdbf6a6cd889cb9d840e7d114
e81603266f5a161059b0d6f4c8b23f8e370a8966
19116 F20101124_AABLSD sutherin_h_Page_039.QC.jpg
08258db8335bef01909de3cf02d5bbe5
6883a26db13f4407309c5820eefd6454f73cedc1
6317 F20101124_AABMVF sutherin_h_Page_046thm.jpg
699d745464550358cf2391e231413e22
1c658ef8d17968df946c18d3d139addc804d738a
2037 F20101124_AABLRO sutherin_h_Page_011.txt
bee395b82deadf7a9129707a5eaa3c05
cd20e63942bab46d03f778455c543a8c225a259e
170015 F20101124_AABMUQ UFE0011461_00001.xml FULL
939cccda9dbdbe66e01828e19b47d9a4
a6c78ca4707d112f7b7c90c0f8fead5b4b7601e0
48512 F20101124_AABLSE sutherin_h_Page_076.pro
d753ac621261421237a314651ab28ea4
7869fe01af61a40d9e9f33980d513bf007647204
6433 F20101124_AABMVG sutherin_h_Page_051thm.jpg
fd4e0188db07164a8fa008f47c89413e
ea0af27fb99b00c0fbcbbdcd61559f73799d001f
14711 F20101124_AABLRP sutherin_h_Page_072.QC.jpg
8c0656b7db471572de457493d0ec60c3
57b35345f204faef947088216b018e48636306cc
22444 F20101124_AABMUR sutherin_h_Page_007.QC.jpg
b3189e93b486f2812ad75c2c74066f1b
80bb202ca35c56924bb3aae5f56415643c405e97
936 F20101124_AABLSF sutherin_h_Page_089.txt
8a3c99c1468e0f532f49aa4a8a1b4578
cd008afed10b5020efa137ab53b9c2ae5e0ea314
6440 F20101124_AABMVH sutherin_h_Page_052thm.jpg
379c8d9b013e07e020d7e1fdd24d89d0
d7879cbf41d2de73c9ac2acdbbc14719305fa6f5
15649 F20101124_AABLRQ sutherin_h_Page_056.QC.jpg
d9eb5cb83be8cb962f381569d99da161
27dc5990bbe85d18646e899a71e4593a6f127bdc
18951 F20101124_AABMUS sutherin_h_Page_010.QC.jpg
11d998d791aa2948ebd6b86380a8e59b
e05061aba6a300a1bfb6200c27a21e77cc376856
109931 F20101124_AABLSG sutherin_h_Page_065.jp2
05cb58428334f7f81dfe366326ca2852
6623d11f3fcbfb496812680db6baba9aa9c5b438
22933 F20101124_AABMVI sutherin_h_Page_074.QC.jpg
98c10f359eff9ffffb4bc93a62ec4a1d
83b3e2f8b9caf539f1059e0e11f81cf836fcf5c4
F20101124_AABLRR sutherin_h_Page_022thm.jpg
3324165cb95f911e1b6e9512a7263674
81b0429392cb4f258790a27efda9dfb2be180560
21870 F20101124_AABMUT sutherin_h_Page_014.QC.jpg
39aa4912a781b51618eabc85fa01a4c7
c4546a302ff0c982e75c9291722e6c2982700958
310 F20101124_AABLSH sutherin_h_Page_090.txt
6f533edab4fa4cd4a54cf00c8f3622e7
845dd34e80eba207e1983a798412ba5f1f8ac163
6587 F20101124_AABMVJ sutherin_h_Page_074thm.jpg
f5d9444ffe392909ab6b5bdadaad2332
af7f9ede94234640f96aefcb882cbf1605a28c57
F20101124_AABLRS sutherin_h_Page_022.tif
2506f8b65acc3abae3bfcf7ad65e562f
4b859378e4d72e98f2d1e2d413e50c27e2fd25bf
6913 F20101124_AABMUU sutherin_h_Page_021thm.jpg
515db380561ba07f5a648791c2b7c9a1
7c4ed4a1ea1189552e4d1e9671a95bfe6a57bf95
6657 F20101124_AABLSI sutherin_h_Page_081thm.jpg
95010a6f0e2ce96c08188a312e0a7a7b
ed8f4f7ea75260e50739866bde299283d113c26b
22256 F20101124_AABMVK sutherin_h_Page_078.QC.jpg
c939f81007eed0ad0e39ef00a15360c5
7cbfbbe544d58441b7bb7cbf8d3373e07d3aa5ca
F20101124_AABLRT sutherin_h_Page_015.tif
6f1f020e35c3d1483183e6669e1afbe9
57a8b3e2c540fafe87ad761c6cbaf7698962036c
24257 F20101124_AABMUV sutherin_h_Page_025.QC.jpg
13f1d7e901275aea5e231879abc31b41
53c2552e48d8fa70e2a93041a1013618e9bc2ad3
94927 F20101124_AABLSJ sutherin_h_Page_032.jp2
5f982afafff36432b62e09152ecb48e3
05b56c5385f5e111fca39fa2a41cd1af213534c1
6577 F20101124_AABMVL sutherin_h_Page_082thm.jpg
277a6e4449b720ffe2841e349a950728
93c0318245636b9bd0dee729111b5a9991c21598
898444 F20101124_AABLRU sutherin_h_Page_037.jp2
051aa23f0a3da8d21db2e7abc97566ed
868cd1929196085778410cf2da9c5dfd77a84d87
6537 F20101124_AABMUW sutherin_h_Page_025thm.jpg
27613d29f41c203a24cbce760db4bbe2
c7f0b3570e9d23bc99150fbe44a8b40a6dcf45c7
112184 F20101124_AABLSK sutherin_h_Page_025.jp2
6c75248e60c20096dd847b0a0ff1ec5a
15cffc27f0a2292ee24dabfeb745d8f3f8b11cc1
13678 F20101124_AABMVM sutherin_h_Page_086.QC.jpg
3aed67ee8fc6d28073b95649830508b1
5270cbd15cd9a95414d7e5f758ddcf5f2a815713
22438 F20101124_AABLRV sutherin_h_Page_064.QC.jpg
f8494c586f8b7ac061f9ef791ec9b512
1461ccf34ab1df51234dc26d7d32ee50e2ac49c4
24353 F20101124_AABMUX sutherin_h_Page_027.QC.jpg
947eade6041e900669b44ad49dc5fded
461f509e4c3d01d09ae6777a24b2fc4d3d5c6f86
61486 F20101124_AABLSL sutherin_h_Page_009.pro
78471a7b7a1139adbb53bf149113f2c4
5cc89f1cab8532cc4ffa66e93402b369832d406c
13096 F20101124_AABMVN sutherin_h_Page_090.QC.jpg
ebf1fff7cd6828c7eb2c50430c3a9400
2e8a493fd7dfe8cb2c0f42c2b96a8b50aa98ce5c
106092 F20101124_AABLRW sutherin_h_Page_076.jp2
23542e871166862ab24f5518ffb81b01
914b145b554141f668165c202ed3145eb773de06
21713 F20101124_AABMUY sutherin_h_Page_031.QC.jpg
20cfd75b26b4856d0221bda835ab6930
831f44a283ac59d58f1328d879f6336d4279dba5
12465 F20101124_AABMVO sutherin_h_Page_091.QC.jpg
eeac32adb460cf86e35c968fc289c87e
36690c4ec069b1d6b2ff955137caeec4bdefd064
22403 F20101124_AABLSM sutherin_h_Page_017.QC.jpg
0a146cc656f24e0a1f6dc528b04ce6a6
c4effa696988431d07a9de4f0131835bf004753a
292041 F20101124_AABLRX sutherin_h_Page_008.jp2
17ac37110ccc1d33d4a17ed963701d93
7ef1869022d4dff0e6af9f7c31ef0bd8c7c9a4b8
16568 F20101124_AABMUZ sutherin_h_Page_034.QC.jpg
44842ee428560261283938120bc584e6
8dbccc7f14ec94a9b38159c46e5ee660ba2c1ef1
70376 F20101124_AABLTA sutherin_h_Page_022.jpg
3b3aceb3053b7bc569d4a14d0b5839d2
40b55df945ea730275543a68ef3ad1adca80cd94
8835 F20101124_AABMVP sutherin_h_Page_093.QC.jpg
34a1b15f25a5fcdd8168b8bb3039071c
25ffd1785d8a218e322b37e0a0b5174a1e615ebc
43151 F20101124_AABLSN sutherin_h_Page_032.pro
194de198fd6d655fc673c47e9746e69e
62d674d1fff73261e34aa7edf9a21b21188272f1
5886 F20101124_AABLRY sutherin_h_Page_090.pro
b1811e3d9870c58e92835474a33bc6ca
c06c435c39bca248183ab48d9d49144fcfbead28
25271604 F20101124_AABLTB sutherin_h_Page_090.tif
63b00cc190b03931c85a5eaec55b8395
4c9647cd06ce6d34c3fe604e2aa093f060bd3f8f
945882 F20101124_AABLRZ sutherin_h_Page_054.jp2
3eb31bedf79571343acdbd87bff04bf9
f690f5d36294790e4702d5be8cc5efded60ac5d6
20289 F20101124_AABLTC sutherin_h_Page_099.pro
ae48ebf719c8d26b6ae6a081e247dfd3
374826822c3fdae9ff86386988aa1537a24576f0
5660 F20101124_AABMVQ sutherin_h_Page_108thm.jpg
620d4000c75c52f03ff1648278a01779
b25a1baa3a45f14b6526e965611ed7d60ca6a685
F20101124_AABLTD sutherin_h_Page_107.tif
6fb976a9c380d1063e662f0435c2f920
bea3f29e135375533c46167f400a18e188175c56
F20101124_AABLSO sutherin_h_Page_044.tif
46d9d6d2db68d77403bed992512778b8
ccb06acf9a61628c05cb6abac9b4413ec57d2a97
19165 F20101124_AABLTE sutherin_h_Page_067.QC.jpg
0c5399bbac81c7ea4f7bcf63dc597d60
10d2804dab5bf044af571698325a02f5e0237bf4
44013 F20101124_AABLSP sutherin_h_Page_108.pro
40900b9ef02b773d3ac207823421b1fb
aad23389129e282cbd1702448eb342d19cb1c860
72966 F20101124_AABLTF sutherin_h_Page_024.jpg
71097514a39a62814c46533053197edc
e7b1740a98ec187b1c27dd30912160d4f2d8dbee
68449 F20101124_AABLSQ sutherin_h_Page_045.jpg
53324b7696f3df2c44f1a248be1d3ad2
01560b8eb6d7334fb26380bb3475a9d5cd7c3e62
F20101124_AABLTG sutherin_h_Page_102.pro
5c96c2601297e44864ce96233aa9ec95
d320653cb9f4542929d2994873c876193e5378d3
51890 F20101124_AABLSR sutherin_h_Page_075.pro
6df837ff1b0e4afa1716b2ce5474d5d5
1d1665d99f857c5b8bf1947684125f1d11f355c2
23133 F20101124_AABLTH sutherin_h_Page_062.QC.jpg
ab73f356035a563b12a5fa1089041bb6
59193e00d78de47c78c9da5ebc2121597c8238d3
6275 F20101124_AABLSS sutherin_h_Page_107.jp2
20d920e05067e23b3ba4be4cb75c393c
4445ca8b090b3e0ffbb3d48d902f7cbfff3c1dba
5240 F20101124_AABLTI sutherin_h_Page_050thm.jpg
f31eec2faa3dcd5399a5a0b51ce7b3bf
234de03026e29af08a8fed34842f923e9645e792
F20101124_AABLST sutherin_h_Page_019.tif
2a2fd274f6212a18b685b0d162476eb4
eec803d2d42cde8c625c3b4954716dd5d97bd14d
34964 F20101124_AABLTJ sutherin_h_Page_099.jp2
6c7feccfae7242d1d958282bf97633e9
f2e40d801d91c3ac953d0afce17cd51c4f5d3ed2
F20101124_AABLSU sutherin_h_Page_072.tif
b6c7089dd582c765c6befa27c4d09a9a
1c10e3f5f4a008c615a375f3bd97d06cd0069f9d
6723 F20101124_AABLTK sutherin_h_Page_027thm.jpg
226a680218be76e673a61435226a803d
c6294ad60faf755125c66a53a4cca666b6ee5021
F20101124_AABLSV sutherin_h_Page_033.tif
260161972c6c59c3caa377fb809c09ed
22e925792d4769000b8df729c24afba62b948561
21061 F20101124_AABLTL sutherin_h_Page_019.QC.jpg
13de368dc5657f57192c7eed0b35a824
f6b776d8bf0d3a8af6ea785253603c19e83f2d59
6541 F20101124_AABLSW sutherin_h_Page_020thm.jpg
94a58dd47d4aa4e8d5f51dc0b5f252ac
6b3c8f1d149225b553b6bcf1fa376a0141e98590
1645 F20101124_AABLUA sutherin_h_Page_039.txt
4c1969adb16c3278a09d53fdade7411b
a6797f1b67576d0159cb9af79c22192971a0fe48
105416 F20101124_AABLTM sutherin_h_Page_083.jp2
3b9faf03f4efbdda00c93bf96fe752e9
69658d6f87f81503987befd7270c813dc86f39dd
F20101124_AABLSX sutherin_h_Page_089.tif
de3d0f5f9e23ddf1ec054c7c475e38f5
a1d118182b576eb20c16b5323d5d90b34da24dde
6296 F20101124_AABLUB sutherin_h_Page_033thm.jpg
027a22b0d1444b99706214d2d525f31a
67fa53f70c986aff0017125ad65080ee78747b76
F20101124_AABLTN sutherin_h_Page_091.tif
d9cd8ab170b42297cdc13aca80374ac1
2636d7bc940221be81abfea6f396b5696d97df11
1912 F20101124_AABLSY sutherin_h_Page_040.txt
67bb6e122508a3aef14f2b2ca30944d4
89d4355810c8316d3bdd6ded0fe9fc4468850b72
73910 F20101124_AABLUC sutherin_h_Page_081.jpg
3c914d19ee3c90491ce634db45eca2f5
ffc45a36791bc4de8529bf028bf2c4ec634a8b10
1841 F20101124_AABLTO sutherin_h_Page_047.txt
6438c98033945730dd8b661207cbb772
58944649d1e0ab523c16552502c40dff4e8d3dda
35024 F20101124_AABLSZ sutherin_h_Page_052.pro
7ec2789ff3c501ff04713d2f45f39279
7e8b2212d5b02fb80114041fc1b9a04478a7dc82
1503 F20101124_AABLUD sutherin_h_Page_053.txt
a9cbcb45423f517618dfac3f7ce0dd7d
92f74f369ffcc9503f954bcc67b8245ec6c881bf
51396 F20101124_AABLUE sutherin_h_Page_028.pro
15b998706f55a14c044e2acc81a58413
ce70f5e136fbb7380bae4acde6f480c18a2e6399
41767 F20101124_AABLTP sutherin_h_Page_071.pro
b1d7ad806f78f6125c58f007e74d37b9
23a3bbfc20bdc9fda63b35f5b68d6245cd5634b2
167 F20101124_AABLUF sutherin_h_Page_104.txt
f4f2ca0883cb68055a91c84688c74f28
7ee38a3882dce7f2c0dda9b446468db72b870a94
4313 F20101124_AABLTQ sutherin_h_Page_072thm.jpg
1f1175b14f8530561d51fe6769643a00
862a08978b9355af81e5f4067409aa5f01c6e0d8
F20101124_AABLUG sutherin_h_Page_100.pro
c5dcff7d6f5ac6d8db8a48bd42eeef5f
6223712bade1e63f97767afa8d8b68feddb9e958
670 F20101124_AABLTR sutherin_h_Page_096.txt
2f15ed334d16d00d30b80bf8de57cd49
8d5bd56006962818b2767974e5ed2be21aef3a0f
34299 F20101124_AABMAA sutherin_h_Page_054.pro
680e7c8f6fec1fd68dfcc46d2727b69b
5ce3e2c2e2a85ca061027efc4da8fbf667fefeb1
F20101124_AABLUH sutherin_h_Page_103.tif
8d6e2daabc78b704676eddc67ad74d1d
6c7fde067ec24cd04a848ac5b8bfe73e2bcc302c
F20101124_AABLTS sutherin_h_Page_070.tif
ccfddcf7054a08f8f4bee2965e3d481e
1f9c0526a21596b27ca3211975a135b72dfd14d4
1112 F20101124_AABMAB sutherin_h_Page_098.txt
3957e707b37ac0467d8dac6e775da5b4
5553e1e2c09bcd906af253b43fdc293542e8217a
22504 F20101124_AABLUI sutherin_h_Page_083.QC.jpg
654fc7e443ef39199f47ee19c2d6f6a4
0fde49448a1967b30c676b3a6d975f3036ff21c1
1536 F20101124_AABLTT sutherin_h_Page_054.txt
500c6b0067099fff30a1f902df5a7fbd
41e74f3aa91d14667a392d7f3fb55ac9030c1621
F20101124_AABMAC sutherin_h_Page_011.tif
394c617d691558e11648dacbe98a4a38
82b3f4539fc5a77b959927f5ae95d358b7eb27e1
1952 F20101124_AABLUJ sutherin_h_Page_069.txt
40fcc931d17827d8b03307ef585dbb0d
8d0b61bd54659572523819dcd3a7a8f5ec17413d
10826 F20101124_AABLTU sutherin_h_Page_102.QC.jpg
20f4c763416770f4583f1ba44c8f6a27
ccad182372cc3f829e736abc17037b574b16ae69
71061 F20101124_AABMAD sutherin_h_Page_013.jpg
3a8558fa6824a0eefa06e36ecae5328d
29cd61d51290d68d1da46b4d937ea763e0663d71
F20101124_AABLUK sutherin_h_Page_042.tif
1995250e17ab2f4cb612a98dbcf1fa92
580b40ccda4a095656948f82f2b26917d95c4424
73916 F20101124_AABLTV sutherin_h_Page_066.jpg
25eaeac673b33cd58e044bad42ba96f6
838c2d4f899ba9f320fe51e15cccf680d96e94cc
947793 F20101124_AABMAE sutherin_h_Page_053.jp2
7f0da13943b9e1aab63e40f0e996335a
13128d6eb85270d2c0b5550cf868960fa6b20c35
82895 F20101124_AABLUL sutherin_h_Page_006.jpg
5f22d44bf3a12661a714e0c8f1be7167
98b5f3ebe84ff914285f4af5591a9b598870137e
3537 F20101124_AABLTW sutherin_h_Page_099thm.jpg
e939704bc5c657796b94293212ef9ea8
2f58298372bf01bf6a37ecd57063c5d2c3d16c7b
80564 F20101124_AABMAF sutherin_h_Page_049.jp2
ff0bd1e08781319318f8b38a32665222
ca904c12c56d65c7585bb6fb3813353b1659f752
23850 F20101124_AABLUM sutherin_h_Page_103.jpg
460ab13824f7c21aeedef23667b9fbd5
32bfd45a770ad08e216c2571aa35f88e968077a1
6323 F20101124_AABLTX sutherin_h_Page_059thm.jpg
6d474714e5e783bbdd579166c8b01e15
f4c3f7cc7685c137345203547caae4b3f76a8dc7
27991 F20101124_AABMAG sutherin_h_Page_093.jpg
b384c67b7115c04c8ac09109181bb2f7
c06a7885b7c33e2e5d18e9bc19867ba237bac1d3
19088 F20101124_AABLVA sutherin_h_Page_105.pro
d44deeeece2245fdbc7f2bdccb9f3580
0e849fb915e023d6023cf0733089d6f007160c6b
6370 F20101124_AABLUN sutherin_h_Page_069thm.jpg
314a24ac26f408d05366884da057bbe3
6e5df74dd973eba53d1cc5c94d8d0abd155f2b72
49656 F20101124_AABLTY sutherin_h_Page_022.pro
76fc6f51bfe8b06bb728e0ab6caab54c
e837a9f891990336eb84b980f498953028030b2e
6528 F20101124_AABMAH sutherin_h_Page_075thm.jpg
09346a9187e71b898cae12f1044bc6cc
95af84df9b2f33a96652dbf0d8fa7236789bb5c5
43067 F20101124_AABLVB sutherin_h_Page_105.jp2
6f0d85e3a1e0d58f039ee556b82967b4
f883505c3e43a41c4adb03711545bd59992a75fb
18892 F20101124_AABLUO sutherin_h_Page_047.QC.jpg
a7642536f1028b1fdae5ea11e7949b5f
4db15a8fb0ac13c0e9fb5b478a86f6bf71178eea
46155 F20101124_AABLTZ sutherin_h_Page_073.pro
59454041d600353a9931626325111ba2
b920785e40547b717b0b5b65b69f07530dc2c575
47289 F20101124_AABMAI sutherin_h_Page_061.jpg
0ebf74805a64177e0f88024799d22708
0b1f8167621b94e5973a1a9c4a768b3ba25a7a7c
F20101124_AABLVC sutherin_h_Page_035.tif
0af9a27f477edf73918754c02f94604f
1a43bfd98a477f520987ad54eb4d9f0392ff9b4d
1774 F20101124_AABLUP sutherin_h_Page_012.txt
11076abc481cf2325fe96cffac770050
398f93f08ccffad46aa4e183a7142469b1dce9ac
50893 F20101124_AABMAJ sutherin_h_Page_023.pro
20ed78280bbff82005f3b4f2e736dd01
8423a0188f2f03ffd8bd6ad3d5bd5dabf79bfcbf
594164 F20101124_AABLVD sutherin_h_Page_095.jp2
3ffe8839ca98e0be43837f6c4170b1a7
635877d623735c70fd5d29bd4e931ec4195ae3ca
23988 F20101124_AABMAK sutherin_h_Page_020.QC.jpg
3345fd263fedfd5c8bf072049310f241
b2ab91c823bf5927adac6a5d779f08a96ef1ab75
23086 F20101124_AABLVE sutherin_h_Page_046.QC.jpg
43e7244a0e29cd859e5df7390a180588
93ddb6283c49c706488f36a3126efca3fcc58579
4903 F20101124_AABLUQ sutherin_h_Page_060thm.jpg
5ed32bd054f1114e1bad57d1a299d6fd
421e8800e96f7bd2460d2490f9e168df9ee5611f
1913 F20101124_AABMAL sutherin_h_Page_045.txt
8ad1d6b5845b6eea4c5e92042cc7c1f0
071769f531f225121b746ec0d58b531f03f5dd48
22497 F20101124_AABLVF sutherin_h_Page_106.QC.jpg
31b9700bf4335ac885b185ad64cbe395
5669200c2f367d4161e5063e4c3b5cd1013d6216
46609 F20101124_AABLUR sutherin_h_Page_014.pro
d1e1547b0a6d2559dad5c840fb395044
cfd19410639860ce9d077ff181185bed1c2ee563
2116 F20101124_AABMBA sutherin_h_Page_041.txt
7f01fa1109d3006261afcf5e5aac2b46
f1205f7d184f2cdc45699fb7efacdb65776c3411
4318 F20101124_AABMAM sutherin_h_Page_090thm.jpg
a585c60d80b809ed32e60484adf308dd
0a60885a2c6d4be086119ade467bc2ef092cdb47
6725 F20101124_AABLVG sutherin_h_Page_065thm.jpg
aecace4c92ece3a58b857258604b7ef3
3de29f890c1577b6400b1294f4bcc52a8440c532
F20101124_AABLUS sutherin_h_Page_006.tif
8b90486a569b8021c8243a4bc455d0c3
e177c9556a8811b6373958a873eb43e12b031688
73286 F20101124_AABMBB sutherin_h_Page_011.jpg
462139f44892ee024543e896bc492595
9b647843e8a020ba24163c4ef006cce838652081
5960 F20101124_AABMAN sutherin_h_Page_039thm.jpg
afca8e4bc1ca4c870476fa1d3241bb7a
fed9436f133681a7a44eacb27fa3eb28f336137b
108069 F20101124_AABLVH sutherin_h_Page_080.jp2
fd62da6e929edfa3a1a5fdbb85b73592
c5aa5219e09aa5800698186aaff21ebff667cd71
1916 F20101124_AABLUT sutherin_h_Page_033.txt
b627c9c9fed7ee43b6b6c3894246772c
eff625f065625b770a8ce825aa67a8063c4a5ccd
91085 F20101124_AABMBC sutherin_h_Page_039.jp2
91bcdb9b9de8a20ea6cef656a712fe73
93c9aae7c7560b63930696b34e273c90b039dd71
4457 F20101124_AABMAO sutherin_h_Page_005thm.jpg
00af6dbac615f096cf8e219b5640b924
b715b0de73e8f4d2620d0457a7ef8ea9799585a9
3532 F20101124_AABLVI sutherin_h_Page_102thm.jpg
00793681e4a756ad1c045a77e44401aa
22f10a41e4dc0e96601e091ea318b40b983a9dbf
1151 F20101124_AABLUU sutherin_h_Page_002.pro
a23fe4ff6248d2d72c89078e55abb9d1
63f0d12e974b706e360d53ce790f32bde7d63cbf
6283 F20101124_AABMBD sutherin_h_Page_038thm.jpg
6c843ba2ba945509f3dedd5295b56e8f
ba122b39012876dfa475077b0764d8d6008757df
4893 F20101124_AABMAP sutherin_h_Page_095.pro
c6f4d496dfb037386cc863b04dbc1221
d84360e7513da92a51211bffd510603dc751cfde
71578 F20101124_AABLVJ sutherin_h_Page_016.jpg
eef5e691fc8470514983756818794e5b
e20e8e5a9d2b4015824d72d82335a12f343c28d3
F20101124_AABLUV sutherin_h_Page_078.tif
79848b04f3667cf042f4f2d715e43360
0a252b9111811871f4013ca2c6d04d8b1e55b427
10824 F20101124_AABMBE sutherin_h_Page_100.QC.jpg
044f29c92307c4fe090c7ac07c94126d
e7e63f090575032c0f7b2a7d9de33f90cb3110b0
86270 F20101124_AABMAQ sutherin_h_Page_067.jp2
c6dc1a54ea07a8be36498347a1bcdae3
e629be03ac9d14e716933d34f85b37768127c48d
1578 F20101124_AABLVK sutherin_h_Page_067.txt
6881b29e30177b12a091df3efc20e79a
90c2083815a09e393cc81add7178ad25f0449c95
1929 F20101124_AABLUW sutherin_h_Page_064.txt
73f5e7fb2c50a4f506429b36e670fb32
f36af8a7bd35fca80d0f717c7802a2b8993ff397
51853 F20101124_AABMBF sutherin_h_Page_011.pro
9a6c36bde959e5556f8ae11b1a290bf4
3edd8366d9fd3096cb9b2fe29a54833c4c561074
69516 F20101124_AABMAR sutherin_h_Page_058.jpg
5097c7ed555a025b340522eda9d1a184
b89df4dfff78d2fc8cc2b2b196828a83d6a7dca2
84861 F20101124_AABLVL sutherin_h_Page_006.pro
62ddc17c6b54fd755d827d23e97abc0f
26c519f13dca2fff2cdabacb80685812990374ab
1051962 F20101124_AABLUX sutherin_h_Page_056.jp2
f50dac15cc5e634a331ca6727016fecd
20b69f422b95d680b317621f125a500be34c455d
32390 F20101124_AABMBG sutherin_h_Page_111.pro
8f1c45386b23273f2775789fbf5c865f
4de386df41f56084048e76981e057ca27b9afe12
73414 F20101124_AABLWA sutherin_h_Page_106.jpg
1f5cf7c2278d5d7be88f40ee83b50f4c
9b752bccdca1b37e0583ba3e9fee3ec6e080edec
51445 F20101124_AABMAS sutherin_h_Page_065.pro
32ddc9fb1dab421a1c4a2271d7b9e82b
f9e73bd3de1758ed084cb4d2abc936240ced8207
2367 F20101124_AABLVM sutherin_h_Page_007.txt
cd40235758ec572f89042b8b338eaa45
36fc2fc4a0248874213589e5e022f8fe22009706
10198 F20101124_AABLUY sutherin_h_Page_107.jpg
1aca99a078b9f71878d93d76a3ec77b6
e2cf343ff59bc97b75aae4680f8c80b3a1b3d735
15795 F20101124_AABMBH sutherin_h_Page_089.pro
1dbe00965fccc40482887bb591ef984b
eca67614ae681eef94ce364186ce0058b7ed0477
F20101124_AABLWB sutherin_h_Page_012.tif
2466603f3a915210c9d51beb36dfe9b6
af5cef5cd776e62852a985950e48d4b5ee1d7fff
21420 F20101124_AABMAT sutherin_h_Page_058.QC.jpg
f084203759690a7e9aecf18c9c831c4f
91b528ec0055e24cfff2665e4d5fe4474eb25a14
775 F20101124_AABLVN sutherin_h_Page_103.txt
8943ad9f6ac33e2e4718ee72e19332f5
50ade9b3b4fcb9fb06893608f63d77dd4cc6ea01
52022 F20101124_AABLUZ sutherin_h_Page_029.pro
f29e288d705102a43cd54e8c7a2516a8
3ad85a85d22f27414b4c57fe9fe6739d1997b6e8
23797 F20101124_AABMBI sutherin_h_Page_084.QC.jpg
05080004a2805acd270ad4b19a87b69f
dce0f31ab514b907645532037d2e50bedb7aee28
109414 F20101124_AABLWC sutherin_h_Page_028.jp2
18c87a8f735c3e65332c841b109583db
731355147e57c835c2a8f2342b4a7201a919b02b
F20101124_AABMAU sutherin_h_Page_066.tif
1a6e0adab8dfd98e3409d443fc767654
dce43a84c606cfe7b926d38c23ba5e176e960f14
52867 F20101124_AABLVO sutherin_h_Page_084.pro
7d823ecb9bfd78ae89b25cadc6c4a498
76cb1616d3e1b925fac2d81f707e7f20ded798fb
1769 F20101124_AABMBJ sutherin_h_Page_035.txt
26d94ffcb603430efcc5b0fae8cde4b2
3eab227cf82f67acf8ed911ca31d161420fb554d
33729 F20101124_AABLWD sutherin_h_Page_105.jpg
afab187ccec1dcfabfa3d9a6c35d544e
75dcb04b23ec36ef51b7f089598088a6d104f212
F20101124_AABMAV sutherin_h_Page_036thm.jpg
027140a01d8bec599e06dec736b7ff7f
82c41220b5cb17e0e09d99ff69b09af3ad82b0d5
1621098 F20101124_AABLVP sutherin_h.pdf
59e22f1a538fe8621cde5b0aef4a28d2
0b9bc1a79f230a9379779c9fa476ab2bd4b36562
34398 F20101124_AABMBK sutherin_h_Page_070.pro
7430b6d93c8003e0b5ee55a803130b48
1fab8b2794a5911eff8b3b27c2b2ecd0a2db7dd5
F20101124_AABLWE sutherin_h_Page_052.txt
265d3feada6dc35e8c0d239bfa9ff306
e32a20c85a0937cb562cb2609ef8b3a0501c7a6a
17554 F20101124_AABMAW sutherin_h_Page_049.QC.jpg
90a1461f1ca00b57d293bc8622788dea
1133d7882a03f009c7b7335d88269f122e1c5c12
73924 F20101124_AABLVQ sutherin_h_Page_025.jpg
57a6d83b66f8ebd91c46628814ebe50a
1316bcd0851517bcfa8fe1f216fb0abce44ac3f2
F20101124_AABMBL sutherin_h_Page_082.tif
6f83bacd185789a5026d2437d29d5e28
c92aed91c29aa43de3ab141b0abf4b65db9e7978
1051979 F20101124_AABLWF sutherin_h_Page_106.jp2
63b49ac14f4bbedb33c67baf2561a7af
fc86d5d80cfebb31f92bb9160c816d6cc5e54e22
8441 F20101124_AABMAX sutherin_h_Page_008.pro
ada82ab8a7349f0e883ee6fcfa82a3bc
1b4fc93e579f375ef3f89c020222f683cad6f987
25110 F20101124_AABMBM sutherin_h_Page_088.jpg
f68947fabff206b184f173609f29ec97
0ce18010d198f7f65dd6d74141fe840cfa7b2695
4584 F20101124_AABLWG sutherin_h_Page_086thm.jpg
0c82b88873c725c83037a9e455eb7e83
73460c7f2b8a164515e7ec5cd0a6b2ad3417d401
6515 F20101124_AABMAY sutherin_h_Page_084thm.jpg
d0112ecf97d433b2a76dd31edea0c37d
5443a1e0def74a9274a26516e472ecc33c488f4a
1933 F20101124_AABLVR sutherin_h_Page_043.txt
a6393e737181291df59759361095fb8a
0a858841e2c36c1788d77b9d191a0cfa6d87465f
32318 F20101124_AABMCA sutherin_h_Page_093.jp2
d74791cc90ee16a8bc7f9f289477ef4d
a2fc6c17d11b93c4b9339028a1abc551609ca584
5614 F20101124_AABMBN sutherin_h_Page_009thm.jpg
6bbcabc5ee15043b67a60e832a4938a6
9af33e51fb0b594901b5de6862daf5672217a0dc
14143 F20101124_AABLWH sutherin_h_Page_057.QC.jpg
b49d0e7623efc0595bc6c01e76c589a5
4d0d31263906cef0d6e4b5f72c4bc020925a9dd4
17273 F20101124_AABMAZ sutherin_h_Page_068.QC.jpg
b1f02f2195160d8331225f921765fd93
f663acf632d142c28988683af268560952b203b6
F20101124_AABLVS sutherin_h_Page_111.tif
bb3172a54525b28625c19be0fcee4bd1
a06900901ad332fc22cfe4b69aeaf7ff5eaf4447
F20101124_AABMCB sutherin_h_Page_081.tif
b42905d66bef87fa80c8d0e6307dbf52
dfbb5362792c42294f5432dcf2a358414f74c52b
6623 F20101124_AABMBO sutherin_h_Page_048thm.jpg
96786782237e429387c41a660433d910
e5b00a3925a308cb5e2a44bb479a177b409d9ddf
1518 F20101124_AABLWI sutherin_h_Page_003thm.jpg
2935f08dbe2ad15f84daa2d76404a04d
2b7866baf90b138df26e32423f0df5fe131032bb
3051 F20101124_AABLVT sutherin_h_Page_094thm.jpg
1a75843cb8eff149d034802d129ed774
0845220acbab51405c501f42f1194d8dfa47e44f
F20101124_AABMCC sutherin_h_Page_047.tif
e0438039b4405b93f0c9170e41eac1b0
3f20f449d9ed814bd4567408df0ee632853a79fa
51534 F20101124_AABMBP sutherin_h_Page_112.jpg
279b553fa2d094ae14990a458b039f26
6187d029f7ecc03082131069a54b551c5ce48d33
3370 F20101124_AABLWJ sutherin_h_Page_107.QC.jpg
738a52026dce3be3befe7ca17613cab7
4a73557017a96c3430e68b3e1e7a043ebb89946d
99773 F20101124_AABLVU sutherin_h_Page_059.jp2
7ca6ec589d9c895e17d0e3238248ef7e
c6a7b9b8e3a9fa42462de037537caf8b4ec912a0
6064 F20101124_AABMCD sutherin_h_Page_068thm.jpg
80f2b2debdd071ce2ee8bd50c539eb14
039a0e97d16ad30b9eadf825818e7212feb47f37
52419 F20101124_AABMBQ sutherin_h_Page_025.pro
54a0b828c2a5ce1d880a1ec86351c90a
16e5840adfef68220ec3e58a1e8ec306c5a46fe1
6059 F20101124_AABLWK sutherin_h_Page_007thm.jpg
fcfabfa89d57d0be0ab025f7445fc562
1d1b8dd796e813a5657437fa0373ae0e9766425c
110755 F20101124_AABLVV sutherin_h_Page_084.jp2
ae0d6c818ca89f94da829dcd8df17b3d
b90955a4d4252bb2ef5e120646f569f511cb3ce4
73050 F20101124_AABMCE sutherin_h_Page_029.jpg
e63962c18eb059b065538c17cce3a2d5
6eec2f1132ec389d91e17c3de472a042c154aee7
48921 F20101124_AABMBR sutherin_h_Page_069.pro
f0fc8b23ac7b1c7a837ecd9008081b02
47759f4a3edade92a56e3098cc409add4b345ede
5334 F20101124_AABLWL sutherin_h_Page_010thm.jpg
6f5a60d727444fa0b0fdb6753873a8f6
fb7393d89604570d7aaa89fd25e2b5cae1b97c3a
5529 F20101124_AABLVW sutherin_h_Page_018thm.jpg
03a21bfdea02a09050d071bfeb3964a5
96dac2f002eb924e535083ecb9aecb71eab09459
F20101124_AABMCF sutherin_h_Page_028.tif
3a1bc0b149ea5557195ec4dad9a77360
478e3086bc9580063451846ad9ec51cc37ca8f8e
50034 F20101124_AABLXA sutherin_h_Page_013.pro
eab9adfb2d5e49ae24eca4fcf19b56c6
ab3ec97af726f14d9de8cf5f4a1855e61c8e1b8e
F20101124_AABMBS sutherin_h_Page_061.tif
b3499aae99251b8029942a5edd7b277a
01ec9f0a2b8ea579b3db328129306b215eb54608
61729 F20101124_AABLWM sutherin_h_Page_010.jpg
7cdd5e29f6357c053ad88931b13569a2
ecf0f92752723c047147de12b317da6523f1c3f4
338 F20101124_AABLVX sutherin_h_Page_008.txt
a31758661740d443d4f2c85e4342a494
c109fa5e3bcf670de53ac43e3d56ec25b355685c
47201 F20101124_AABMCG sutherin_h_Page_033.pro
4fec8082e3a3c9411f987c240e229095
8c4c30aae1341d5ea4fd139e2a8112a9655fef7b
F20101124_AABLXB sutherin_h_Page_050.tif
93e5d8b15c101624f9d849a46169837c
6ea1de75a39f8ecc1608a26d6c2891908c540d0a
71799 F20101124_AABMBT sutherin_h_Page_065.jpg
68e4d1254976ab6db584bf8c1fc766f2
3cee04f23b52b980b42e93032c4760d9650081c0
206 F20101124_AABLWN sutherin_h_Page_056.txt
358c2d68808bcfd419d66d7913624723
e47bed815e8a77aef8af8806de45f31bf3df1ae6
22242 F20101124_AABLVY sutherin_h_Page_076.QC.jpg
520dab84646736fd818699e2cfa9fdaf
b6ecff7ff78f82abc2bcc6f4ff7d3a7ad855efbe
F20101124_AABMCH sutherin_h_Page_056.tif
f0e7f313e9b4cf620d7b6f6c7f09ded1
7498c19d14c81386654850d27a4f11abdc77ee30
58689 F20101124_AABLXC sutherin_h_Page_047.jpg
7be3b04328067d301778fbebfe69edc6
3d6c85f216c9952a24a4f55c42848a5e2ce4a6cb
112456 F20101124_AABMBU sutherin_h_Page_020.jp2
d961ab10ff86fb0bafc9eddb64a33f34
10ab5ee5389dde501ae4d368acd79d2297c792ff
50832 F20101124_AABLWO sutherin_h_Page_016.pro
fe8ac50f965310331bf80fccc6a3e9de
bc50e76d962627b84eb9da83dbabbcb071aadb47
F20101124_AABLVZ sutherin_h_Page_094.tif
c1110b1f8f2093022114c9f8a96887f4
38a61d68bb879b9ea655dbb7b327701733528303
19247 F20101124_AABMCI sutherin_h_Page_009.QC.jpg
e258582185931da30ee274277f914ab9
342d543004b06f53c5cb65ceef6e2f11374dc14a
45635 F20101124_AABLXD sutherin_h_Page_019.pro
f0e53818ca4e1b3b7cc42e25a66209f9
b8a0722f9b4799306ef2aa30bb0caa96ca13854d
F20101124_AABMBV sutherin_h_Page_015thm.jpg
aee4b148a068e944cb133b07d6274bec
3a008080a43136208df8dc533e7385a372fc9d6c
2027 F20101124_AABLWP sutherin_h_Page_048.txt
f09aa2b3d2675acda719b446b515acd0
56fab4e3528a1923fc41bfccc35056f52b646cb9
48662 F20101124_AABMCJ sutherin_h_Page_083.pro
fece982e5b4f3ee2359f4635acf7b04c
25a261f2190796def0100e317dd2931486584102
F20101124_AABLXE sutherin_h_Page_092.tif
1f43242bb2a95b967d06418e824657fa
2aa4b3c2b2cfd9df9284b62d7ee68bd10b29e7fe
6405 F20101124_AABMBW sutherin_h_Page_026thm.jpg
528babbaa6748a59330457a7684dd697
ac5e5d498fd9018444787c080c6df6185d353b5f
80330 F20101124_AABLWQ sutherin_h_Page_110.jpg
33021a1a41bb437567f07016420190b8
5f56dd3e459ea27f4adeb109413900b43955bc59
19075 F20101124_AABMCK sutherin_h_Page_036.QC.jpg
71fb44dd9c186fb5afe474b1c98b6844
5dc52eb144d195f46a83d50d4c0e9b3560789439
38025 F20101124_AABLXF sutherin_h_Page_042.pro
0973eb4a082d5c31933b24e1514d352d
238f3bdf139000d828200ac384d70baad863c120
112815 F20101124_AABMBX sutherin_h_Page_075.jp2
b47b0adcd5c8e4bab827dd58963403f9
60e58075df8082ec5ba9005b5cb9cbfd6cc043df
5423 F20101124_AABLWR sutherin_h_Page_002.jp2
ef7ac6d88dd08a990f65521e1be46924
759c179518a59161c35f97e9743292c1de71995d
111148 F20101124_AABMCL sutherin_h_Page_011.jp2
d7dfcbbe1a338507631355dd8a1282f1
38702ee9fee47f3538e46e99f843ff060cc3ac62
2996 F20101124_AABLXG sutherin_h_Page_057.pro
94029be7c447ac590a04e5d84bcebeb9
11896f1ea15a57f7615ebd4ce8d2d32a8654ca28
9119 F20101124_AABMBY sutherin_h_Page_096.QC.jpg
18fc1987a28db2d2bbd80366f8b4d3e5
abc9fcf4695f811f67cc4d9b09836ca74e03fb68
F20101124_AABMDA sutherin_h_Page_080.tif
21acb4c7aca627eb3a16c4ffa7e23e72
c5f8c4af84e336fd8938e108bf01d1b1e0f37802
F20101124_AABMCM sutherin_h_Page_060.tif
c71dc330117c6fb17a6af8194b4ffbdf
a2ed201e4d619dfcd4467b5a15fba5ba694e6892
48870 F20101124_AABLXH sutherin_h_Page_064.pro
14c63b05f9e20f7e6877f6be9e5f3062
0d794fcfb388874c31469c7916772a0c77c98141
1904 F20101124_AABMBZ sutherin_h_Page_046.txt
0a12d8b0349718e22621642387d9153f
e83dee1a798ae3671355561620d2b1354fb2b7c2
F20101124_AABLWS sutherin_h_Page_004thm.jpg
140bd2a95f29455e6ca2410e60b56502
0f11e63f6058d8e021adf0f69bd1fa275956734f
6434 F20101124_AABMDB sutherin_h_Page_080thm.jpg
f6a995476113a3ae109fc9ffc6a57dcd
f80ef7bd5a3dbab947abcb52ef04e54c463f5f61
69289 F20101124_AABMCN sutherin_h_Page_040.jpg
7e5739b7e3a4082aeca2b61959d6056b
c40d9735b95b5c7edccaf7a438008520344a410c
F20101124_AABLXI sutherin_h_Page_101.pro
10dc6b8b61d4314f6e978ad74aca8e9a
bdd4dc6aa8d990f5d00dffc3ce1d7fed0fbe2e32
16407 F20101124_AABLWT sutherin_h_Page_034.pro
8542f408b5c25e035509815db8d8502d
01971ec1948a3a6560efcaa135d77f2314f29475
72921 F20101124_AABMDC sutherin_h_Page_084.jpg
b8198bea818d7db807d3205125d3dd25
821f608c0f38aff0ab9d92158f9faca9551b82a6
1961 F20101124_AABMCO sutherin_h_Page_076.txt
8b5febd736fbcbcb8da0ec61dc4182fb
c9c0440cadebf101847b13beee4bec1205dd48fa
52060 F20101124_AABLXJ sutherin_h_Page_081.pro
3a0048deb64257d254f447ab57257462
e926ef748155516ca97d04f1dddf1e9396a44646
57318 F20101124_AABLWU sutherin_h_Page_042.jpg
a8df2fd611d0d47e926539c18a778375
edcf697f316ab3d3913366cc72b456e91f169501
F20101124_AABMDD sutherin_h_Page_055.tif
f686adf55667a8c9c9aa683698d7a949
b77af42bf4d472a647996b43e47ffa3f150a8ff5
72323 F20101124_AABMCP sutherin_h_Page_111.jp2
624e341ace6b0dd8531fb157add9bbd7
126129e5448f7f0aaf2f029eca169bb01c23e964
962797 F20101124_AABLXK sutherin_h_Page_051.jp2
1d82ad0afce617c3d7def06a074ebac9
4d1572a4c0db3b48e7e429890b92e3e7ce511199
23112 F20101124_AABLWV sutherin_h_Page_055.QC.jpg
272193e9140976f091e4d5511b6a6193
f2f3b3650bd675a422a01ca2d0923499d04fe56d
21742 F20101124_AABMDE sutherin_h_Page_085.QC.jpg
d4fdcac730bab159b2b2a6b72e859c51
d15412e9192bf9f7d35910276fc1bd17d71edc8c
F20101124_AABMCQ sutherin_h_Page_023.tif
829d27e76278278578fcc2c02d1ddc16
585cbcda4fc8e75ededd5e0f620d6d3675c0ac2e
5376 F20101124_AABLXL sutherin_h_Page_095thm.jpg
16758259a6e660f0bec93a847e3e9676
4c3b98db3c47e656c1eb008dd7c2499fdb6f48a2
6423 F20101124_AABLWW sutherin_h_Page_053thm.jpg
e5683379cb76581464eb96001704c8e4
f3b1e31cb773266b7b19f850283e6cd8fd220508
1890 F20101124_AABMDF sutherin_h_Page_097.txt
5b2d48bc1a16a2839e9af7a51ebc7c06
28d0584fb3d37507a0206f2164bd61de27a9613a
F20101124_AABMCR sutherin_h_Page_069.tif
1f47101ad0ec7be156ccd043f6ee89f5
bdc538043932686b0efee8d41816b275f4db04ee
35708 F20101124_AABLWX sutherin_h_Page_049.pro
2aae8999a84f3deb142e961c517c0fce
60c1e55d17f42b1005aab5398661cfd2d3787cfb
F20101124_AABMDG sutherin_h_Page_064.tif
033f8d44bec5473afbedc66e5935ca7b
1b24db62821fef21e6294abafa24f1e5a0cb7b00
F20101124_AABLYA sutherin_h_Page_095.tif
9d2f54aa44e36d440a5348bcd737ec4f
d355596fd1e68c36fcc30cddcc0380b42fb0b050
F20101124_AABMCS sutherin_h_Page_041.tif
00d1de7594a0ca7f7a191725f972f905
eedf89b0c595907badc3ada6f42a915ac4c1b73b
F20101124_AABLXM sutherin_h_Page_036.tif
7cd8013487ab9f3b0a861acdf2d8a5eb
b0d8bac4e27c7a7abba32eef05a436169e81e48e
1051986 F20101124_AABLWY sutherin_h_Page_006.jp2
4f80450442b31ed0c779b833ab84f983
65de366992b518098443316df63aa28311aff7c5
87670 F20101124_AABMDH sutherin_h_Page_010.jp2
1a33cefc953aff69754a5bc4aad96abd
b95b340a49a666166b5e438e5cb4ee2c8a3c6cc5
72741 F20101124_AABLYB sutherin_h_Page_048.jpg
bcfd0e12c07bfc4ac4ab2e052dc1e5b7
baa4f22a51a3722fc8e3f16ed6ffb26b83bcab3e
8260 F20101124_AABMCT sutherin_h_Page_088.QC.jpg
d976385787b8fa5c8840fec1294276be
36873162633b0e0829c83839d74f8fc913438bed
944 F20101124_AABLXN sutherin_h_Page_105.txt
df110064af4bdab27022ed0c19c19bae
46c15a0c3289ccbfcb6987055abd6bf58ad37583
6420 F20101124_AABLWZ sutherin_h_Page_066thm.jpg
86f03fdeb9763a5b3f316f92007ecc61
1e715e508c27ab25d0e8af40e022887418d06346
49747 F20101124_AABMDI sutherin_h_Page_055.pro
4ed637ab020476b4bb8c259325fae04f
a280569211ba0659bcc89ceeb9278f647a1ba209
75432 F20101124_AABLYC sutherin_h_Page_021.jpg
017cc6a6ba03a9a72e527883625886a7
614eee116484dc9939359e605accde78491744c0
1951 F20101124_AABMCU sutherin_h_Page_008thm.jpg
cc6e96d5e605edc0db8f8ddc2d7b7cd4
07a8e0e1ff2e0bd77f8926f11b56ca147bfe6ae0
3213 F20101124_AABLXO sutherin_h_Page_089thm.jpg
32d9b75b0c872c4914cbee74b1c1391c
eac22ebb0fd1225df5f9c074a6639edf81372384
2301 F20101124_AABMDJ sutherin_h_Page_110.txt
271955324795f14e61e0ba9c994864ee
d43275c78245b16fd7c2963cbe10cede509ee005
6278 F20101124_AABLYD sutherin_h_Page_031thm.jpg
4a5e3861ef334b687557d4ed95981d58
81c8b7deea006953053db85a0f3ca1bfd8b914ad
3340 F20101124_AABMCV sutherin_h_Page_091.pro
895cad8b42a48537ee065aefe46f49bf
569c510661ab7979b377090c35f8ec0e09163aed
107872 F20101124_AABLXP sutherin_h_Page_016.jp2
e7fa54a0cb2a61d587e0ba22bac55d79
1079c8d2c1d45175a252520b1cae53366bdc8771
107741 F20101124_AABMDK sutherin_h_Page_062.jp2
a4068978ae4c6e02df34441aa5abe389
1aa656497ffed7ce86e0fd0204c189e849b5ddbc
13283 F20101124_AABLYE sutherin_h_Page_092.QC.jpg
af9e0cee4b2adb7a3e78c1d11fddeea9
057a52b6fa74ee05f714560176c6610a2a0050d2
F20101124_AABMCW sutherin_h_Page_076.tif
fad042fd4c2a7746e77bbf2f8c4c3490
c5d751f3af6e9fad1a981556a62fb871db9fdc06
1922 F20101124_AABLXQ sutherin_h_Page_085.txt
133c55b60cc45606abae6e0d75c3d28d
85e523c4601a893c26487cba488ed3d5cc8e9712
F20101124_AABMDL sutherin_h_Page_085.tif
917bd037ac4ab8c9ae6f0a5d22aedb07
e70a1bc11bbd5e58c75a04cf8c1dcee779eb1a68
37652 F20101124_AABLYF sutherin_h_Page_090.jpg
6d131d7e3d45902abcf05313826a29a8
08a997884a9d4d1f3e7b23310f2eddebef585a8e
2089 F20101124_AABMCX sutherin_h_Page_025.txt
5024b1c300514c241f58b9b9016c159a
4d9bb9a766a5e501c9154926cafc540c5e3f6f6f
36509 F20101124_AABLXR sutherin_h_Page_089.jp2
7c627e86f178dec32da432e62f817d94
cd80f13a53ffa42c4fa259c2cc6261c3c3defe90
87453 F20101124_AABMEA sutherin_h_Page_071.jp2
dbf1cdb7d0bcc01653189a44fe7fb71c
d0895bfd3148a011cc18aae054bd93cfb871dc75
9886 F20101124_AABMDM sutherin_h_Page_089.QC.jpg
47cfdbfc0ce300a5034cae55f17d0cb9
67a55adfebd128d6777101ee33a06372a28daa38
24478 F20101124_AABLYG sutherin_h_Page_110.QC.jpg
9c568c2868c3c3897ea04f50a1abb4cd
1ac96990c591603fe011e28706b91760b7cce280
22986 F20101124_AABMCY sutherin_h_Page_026.QC.jpg
4323be6368b397646e5f9cff47bd5bfb
4f8accc5a89edc9b748a26c8aec09e5441d56609
122768 F20101124_AABLXS sutherin_h_Page_109.jp2
b4d8819a2bcb093d739221e866b86f0f
0b87dc1066a621ef9371b32c9586a01563fa7558
6395 F20101124_AABMEB sutherin_h_Page_017thm.jpg
b3c918e6d5cb33c5b19a8e6610b6e324
23d2dd6d443e9aca7469f08a14f0e916d1187fa6
6706 F20101124_AABMDN sutherin_h_Page_109thm.jpg
3bf7ba76ed17934c51e538462fd1c9db
0969a3da6619eaabfc65091a283dbd8615859d71
64362 F20101124_AABLYH sutherin_h_Page_071.jpg
0fb45cbc0eb8f15b292f0e8df10804fb
9b088b82a2fac6e6bd6f02307e4d0b30a9d884b0
2024 F20101124_AABMCZ sutherin_h_Page_030.txt
792d4f35604fe19473808b2dede33b99
21e59c4f36de413871deed27be2805bdf1e2dede
3282 F20101124_AABMEC sutherin_h_Page_002.QC.jpg
130d6e39eb0adadd24c81bed45eb85f6
5c779b3fd5ab4586893f23de02c8df885c4b803c
935268 F20101124_AABMDO sutherin_h_Page_058.jp2
3de0573463b72e16087daba6b129e5bd
ca80ea01e44fddc1bf74f02b495534bdc7073307
105871 F20101124_AABLYI sutherin_h_Page_022.jp2
d415c39e81b19d804cfe11ec48d1c9c4
047b3dd59860db2a5593fcb1c256edf3e3418ea6
13664 F20101124_AABLXT sutherin_h_Page_093.pro
0523dbf0e43306219910e75e85576c96
e8824b99fe3070a0beabe97abd2d2bda09986225
6417 F20101124_AABMED sutherin_h_Page_045thm.jpg
2c6609da9d04b184d1b5e456ec854158
1503d35fb9bad94fff4b0f0fead5573d3c3898de
23216 F20101124_AABMDP sutherin_h_Page_023.QC.jpg
8f15962b87f531f662bb5bfd550ba51f
765c530dc4839e033342a3837ead78b54b1d0b60
F20101124_AABLYJ sutherin_h_Page_074.tif
1594733b415e7ce9973e7f1f73b5596e
6c0d2dad959f2e773849aa68b99f789d1e15fca7
27113 F20101124_AABLXU sutherin_h_Page_096.jpg
faf95cc15cd244abec58ae9f30fe23f4
7dc618829225416b1a3d35a5ae6f4a16452e5449
1671 F20101124_AABMEE sutherin_h_Page_018.txt
ab0d8c7e613611bd7c29fe80bf0471d8
af68629e2e49f5ea33bcf67c59b88a628403e54a
47300 F20101124_AABMDQ sutherin_h_Page_043.pro
5406c18852f8788eb8ea79b20b867196
c7a195f6ba214e195e44960f6fe625c735b3bc24
6427 F20101124_AABLYK sutherin_h_Page_062thm.jpg
9389c85d941f349e8c7dc95f6bb4e307
d678ff1e51c04c834b579edc6c647e143e43c52a
109 F20101124_AABLXV sutherin_h_Page_002.txt
f3231c9254cdc164b51c2c87fa9261d0
ce19c7ec2a156d3380622d95fe2313da65218a78
23567 F20101124_AABMEF sutherin_h_Page_011.QC.jpg
8d19eb919010def1bb7a98c82ac43ff5
2cae2fac8057aed566baac86a7a34f727dd97d46
3512 F20101124_AABMDR sutherin_h_Page_098thm.jpg
c3db9e7658084e27029810a92d7d895b
3406798234b8d6f9a6325f8bda45f703d65b40a0
105787 F20101124_AABLYL sutherin_h_Page_038.jp2
07999ccc51dcf08be4fd73b5c1318270
88e422b142505ec1e26cff865ac1437ff3fdcca9
162 F20101124_AABLXW sutherin_h_Page_086.txt
2c424de176c8b975afffc4146e795880
6029e781cdd76fd2a6e9712333eaed265636d462
F20101124_AABMEG sutherin_h_Page_081.txt
594d7d8e2387795591114ea326f03ce5
c3f38fd485e4abeef974f26af434e6f5021ee65a
48779 F20101124_AABLZA sutherin_h_Page_062.pro
58507be3414d33eb322409f739147b1f
ac34301833360a68705f351ce90a8a781521dade
1431 F20101124_AABMDS sutherin_h_Page_107thm.jpg
b999f2fddb335d04e5f6ebe4ecebe91a
9e37a30f20cf0c194ea4ea8d791879213615c620
6559 F20101124_AABLYM sutherin_h_Page_077thm.jpg
811cd2b91edb39938225cc20255a4696
18b0c00847a585baea0e681ddb1254be4a390c03
23325 F20101124_AABLXX sutherin_h_Page_065.QC.jpg
dde24d7208b637138c201e1552dec3dd
941f8cc90bbd9ef788d1531774267bd2057c5030
210 F20101124_AABMEH sutherin_h_Page_057.txt
c00da02be38ead9a29ee5819fdd5b347
51028a720a716bee41e760e6f74199a97b8a26da
6558 F20101124_AABLZB sutherin_h_Page_011thm.jpg
c3ba2b1c16c272ca6d81d547e04a0f40
67d942d8afd85e5a304ac330ab3b2b47efc10e82
1534 F20101124_AABMDT sutherin_h_Page_051.txt
758341b5d9084e82533b1e23515b71ca
4f4e65d1e1e6f3d11afac1b45f3ce3034261b108
F20101124_AABLYN sutherin_h_Page_031.tif
f0aae9105dacf2b4323b94594b6b9e32
48a67ad85aa8355160350c844fb50f410e7408ac
1364 F20101124_AABLXY sutherin_h_Page_002thm.jpg
9e3a9f8c8ddea7286fa39e92007c03a0
32d630609e793758afb7a255da8f4c8ee373dbd3
18603 F20101124_AABMEI sutherin_h_Page_050.QC.jpg
df069a5a0c00a5eaa0377322916e60a4
5a5ca166eca13f133f3e2b9995e0e67be6375799
3427 F20101124_AABLZC sutherin_h_Page_006.txt
a279090dd630207a23cba7adcc39a640
8298ca8782966d1278263537e969aa170cd507df
2036 F20101124_AABMDU sutherin_h_Page_079.txt
973089601e3386b3fed985bd544d0299
185aa02af2b186f0b0678062d984ac402d11db69
2040 F20101124_AABLYO sutherin_h_Page_029.txt
decb5caecd9032345f925487f9bd4825
e920581f240a7cc27b11ad9867e9fa7ca139fe97
2864 F20101124_AABLXZ sutherin_h_Page_103thm.jpg
6ec456ba19b2d3755f38773a88360c0e
b0387ad8e31aa35cb0ddc06fd2606d7889a56287
624194 F20101124_AABLZD sutherin_h_Page_034.jp2
c5c730cf7b5576440e05f27952e295ab
f50f8c763cd7e53ebbb12e6c631a2b681bbbb25d
2018 F20101124_AABMDV sutherin_h_Page_020.txt
a7e343645fb2161e55f9351667d474e8
13e09ee9a1825e863d69b1d0ba90d5d6c87817e5
74227 F20101124_AABLYP sutherin_h_Page_027.jpg
1934b2a088d81d487f1c7cf8deff7ef9
58b0cb9374124fc2d7ded0408343f7b364ce6760
2053 F20101124_AABMEJ sutherin_h_Page_082.txt
9d19cc04b022a06f0c20681d6b81d311
f9d641c80bc2ed907f468dbafaf492a5b58cacd6
F20101124_AABLZE sutherin_h_Page_086.jp2
ccf6b011c861ae2ce0a97b14e8dda6cd
513c13106db22dbcaf8bb5964cfe23d41499f410
F20101124_AABMDW sutherin_h_Page_024.tif
61253c15bead523f62bafa0b32f7721e
09c2d49792a1d45f29f93cf8f764fa397db900a5
1906 F20101124_AABLYQ sutherin_h_Page_019.txt
3cd29748bfe3d1a5b53ddbac476e9b3f
c22f59195127a0184410347a9fd818966a08fb03
F20101124_AABMEK sutherin_h_Page_018.tif
1eaf490b0a6c1f01f09ccf3e7bda9ca4
811a6d1d9a660933a0f0262c0226217eb1502fc1
11169 F20101124_AABLZF sutherin_h_Page_088.pro
72b6c3cd4c6c55bf12ac002351e99aeb
284737d9051f9a5ce89d676fa3ee3c42c5a90598
61722 F20101124_AABMDX sutherin_h_Page_039.jpg
b2aa19899d09778f6c6b28cdfbc3107d
f2ddbe953e4f568ff19374b99756788c33dffcb0
1858 F20101124_AABLYR sutherin_h_Page_031.txt
5bb2cb0fe995d8fa108fbba1ea213ba7
eb1150da4febce90b5813e76b5ee7876d3032e5a
4977 F20101124_AABMEL sutherin_h_Page_049thm.jpg
c19445af90caff5552d00440db2b751d
f3d399bc49d30587bb96e40edc9ad7500d6f6bb9
23323 F20101124_AABLZG sutherin_h_Page_043.QC.jpg
dbc7653a070b660d4f91ca0bf237257b
12ba042329bee238216a8b022b9a2270e8cf2c36
69141 F20101124_AABMDY sutherin_h_Page_038.jpg
6acdfd2a012440f8f4f2d908673df59e
9854854fc7573ffe2401c0e08c23fdbbefb1e9a6
23667 F20101124_AABLYS sutherin_h_Page_063.QC.jpg
ee688bbc49081c73b96841add2c00ad3
715eb843cb82b56b7d11a13d355cc5a035c0d5b8
F20101124_AABMFA sutherin_h_Page_046.tif
a67a7a9ea0275cba361910c4a7f6dc78
a47579d3ab2f1def03e29eaca4158c7eea3101ff
108033 F20101124_AABMEM sutherin_h_Page_074.jp2
b163f1562f7a4507ba4eb0578c63678c
db3a9883408e51829842e6ef5ac76ce7d8cb4f1b
F20101124_AABLZH sutherin_h_Page_079.tif
3774fa72f1d3d7b5dc8a00d9dbc2210c
a715434c41d04e31bc30e22c1c939e97f3591012
1990 F20101124_AABMDZ sutherin_h_Page_022.txt
e7f943e03696576c1e22c501c03666be
6a96f8dedb568ed9188e44eb2b560484b04c7ec6
79024 F20101124_AABLYT sutherin_h_Page_007.jpg
8a9ce6810f64cd3b487e754fa62f343c
e87d32b0a82110c8af159571cc4be36f7334f786
73908 F20101124_AABMFB sutherin_h_Page_020.jpg
b90cc33dec78e11a4c533d05409ae8d3
9eaa6f35a2a86c80764f345753398975d07650e3
5918 F20101124_AABMEN sutherin_h_Page_032thm.jpg
4a34be0d343e137cb0c6ccdc4d95f408
b6b631c8052c66f52a46ac734b9036e553203ca4
1920 F20101124_AABLZI sutherin_h_Page_083.txt
6ab0a9e131ae2ee74b8d61a556a3b9db
5c62bce885f5105d50e7ca12c7015a19c70c9b6f
69392 F20101124_AABMFC sutherin_h_Page_059.jpg
2d51aca023da03d4d954029b52b3303d
1ad651226a11b7127c019fb887e165b486caa067
1817 F20101124_AABMEO sutherin_h_Page_032.txt
1f0e827ca691f301a1c7709de9007e1c
8b8c08ef4abc52c058b748e3ec742d19819c846c
73879 F20101124_AABLZJ sutherin_h_Page_082.jpg
4889fca6c618885bc5828e881a223e36
2d0f1fe183765f2e7696dfa6b56ead856418934b
851007 F20101124_AABLYU sutherin_h_Page_070.jp2
eeeb373295b97acec73bb8c636865c45
7fae344e164a66c107d4574b0b219cc05f840240
34976 F20101124_AABMFD sutherin_h_Page_101.jp2
5c32bec48908fe36c12c509563b963e9
4707e6e1b422e6cfc1f7bd010614d6d37aca4381
63166 F20101124_AABMEP sutherin_h_Page_108.jpg
7c159e1ebf347dd30a2f65f52fe07e7f
3c52dd877f02d4a3fdd2f9289f643aad4f775852
110362 F20101124_AABLZK sutherin_h_Page_030.jp2
3e5036b09337c646f1df2030f5ec2f0e
d02367e06388bc761d6511f8c7baa2d5081d919d
F20101124_AABLYV sutherin_h_Page_053.tif
49a1d92812b1423075c7f063622ecb87
b99837a5f5a30bce1e1f4f89cc5614d3ed6c9c4f
23420 F20101124_AABMFE sutherin_h_Page_066.QC.jpg
7563f843c26b8aab6da8d6e538f10589
2b22bfb61b2aaaa009a0f8ded68d166d47c0a60d
19276 F20101124_AABMEQ sutherin_h_Page_036.pro
357a9c92c90d938fa4d8514066e8e64b
031be37426b7b895e9053385139d7ee81ffeb485
18512 F20101124_AABLZL sutherin_h_Page_037.QC.jpg
deec87b7c5207661214585271d44cc50
fb024411c44055d72f04a4fdd8f9f6c347d404b8
29427 F20101124_AABLYW sutherin_h_Page_037.pro
b9ee835f07c9aa262b8ef8016ead64ad
bd21676155803f1f00772f5c8fc47c1498940cca
3049 F20101124_AABMFF sutherin_h_Page_093thm.jpg
4f033b2794c5e885ed344bafec5e9f28
49906b6518a8e8ab2b18202faba054ff838cdb43
35112 F20101124_AABMER sutherin_h_Page_035.pro
221e627df214dc78a2f07dde139cc171
d34f9170aa67a0739c8210475127d9526b040307
2448 F20101124_AABLZM sutherin_h_Page_009.txt
65115db76810ccda4fe9b2738dcb85b6
e42c081408f78f8452ea73feb148855c985b62d7
6869 F20101124_AABLYX sutherin_h_Page_003.jp2
5fbb18e0761b8e0dec459c478e11c334
8220dbe29adc532bfa95eb906cff712f3ea1e1d9
528 F20101124_AABMFG sutherin_h_Page_001.txt
2f3df7d8ae7d3a95335fa0885b120299
91924f71e01d5a56e7032619f0ac5222135bd063
65222 F20101124_AABMES sutherin_h_Page_060.jp2
78ba0ca1901dac59c09fe5cbc6668ab6
738bbcfb7d3d3d5cad03895a7568ad43e23eeb39
2021 F20101124_AABLZN sutherin_h_Page_028.txt
40c59c9cf2bf64e0d5bf790981ce8446
3ed64e7203043069ec315d39c3f1f66476edb939
23594 F20101124_AABLYY sutherin_h_Page_030.QC.jpg
cf7f763e749e960129a2345577e63b0c
abb28aed974aed95d88969ac5f2202b89ac7d40f
10825 F20101124_AABMFH sutherin_h_Page_101.QC.jpg
f0661a79b10af67c30af3e73a9b6708f
9732d9b45fa87a7463849cee65ffad036c47d06b
29107 F20101124_AABMET sutherin_h_Page_100.jpg
6165bd23b6d0f13dee9333d3abba40e0
f1a9edc0b3e6060f29a958f8f2285edcd616b1b5
2585 F20101124_AABLZO sutherin_h_Page_001thm.jpg
9f8524e41f4a388585c9e5b2a95e8e52
cde7f88a98094b30147b1c3b7cf53051b61c1d38
110449 F20101124_AABLYZ sutherin_h_Page_024.jp2
1cbf22a17af7d9b16f0381b988d2d04a
948c7709a2edfd2f2d91922cfcaae0b94f0a416e
100169 F20101124_AABMFI sutherin_h_Page_031.jp2
34981f7bd712deb4f97b59c10038effa
8f3a5e1fda75fb54099bb1e1c646b71faea76489
1830 F20101124_AABMEU sutherin_h_Page_108.txt
def69ec3000afaa34a85494571e8209c
fa98d70ec046824c503be2bce26aaa789ddf24be
741 F20101124_AABLZP sutherin_h_Page_036.txt
55e7bf7e8639854ef48c5a471210d27d
045ded5bbd02f52fc68131f500e2404f9f77a9fb
67599 F20101124_AABMFJ sutherin_h_Page_051.jpg
988b904089ca6f3f33123db8e3b520fd
b70132ad1b0da5ee38e92263168248c12fd0ee28
3288 F20101124_AABMEV sutherin_h_Page_003.QC.jpg
7d6d28906001c1bdef9cd93d0f02eba1
e6970e5480d76d7a1b862a8889d5c6af84eae52e
71404 F20101124_AABLZQ sutherin_h_Page_023.jpg
58839c5b2af905a53e4bec949f90b364
6f7e0d86ba208fa2befb79f0d8cdfc1374bccd45
9547 F20101124_AABMFK sutherin_h_Page_001.pro
fab8486f0e28008bde633356810c7539
5ecd7c7efc8720642299883608c760195f95ad8c
F20101124_AABMEW sutherin_h_Page_100.tif
046a49758e9c9b232b240138b2048af6
bdb252b0afc64bf6ab2ab0e24c77752848588759
1043 F20101124_AABLZR sutherin_h_Page_102.txt
e937cf696beae2bace28b85c8c7f77fc
178c3967e4b5a8f817ccdb2d5c26b66c10564675
2038 F20101124_AABMGA sutherin_h_Page_065.txt
56f36de9b7d80298524d3d7ed61a9ad3
80b38e3116d490a2b4ba6d584ae26512545bae90
1986 F20101124_AABMFL sutherin_h_Page_080.txt
b8a9cfa143cb8f8557b65389ed972eb3
6f952a6b8b2dbee7ac1fa6e0d564188def7ae313
F20101124_AABMEX sutherin_h_Page_001.tif
6c633774c7219470264b267862467b4f
5aa6ce472883e43bd8c86c86cde98a1938fd2b75
86308 F20101124_AABLZS sutherin_h_Page_050.jp2
8387e6b688fd7d46854ebbc0a0e2acb6
b9ab3fce06a54ff555f2c32f934ef686bbc73ec3
15491 F20101124_AABMFM sutherin_h_Page_061.QC.jpg
da0b59208854dafe142740ca0344fe02
4c591156d43cb4cf31c60b49f571170eb77c83f6
4435 F20101124_AABMEY sutherin_h_Page_087thm.jpg
5478dde9199ca54172d33a7f9c328412
40a6f57f09d8d2a20f8f7159a062f15d24f8c37d
2259 F20101124_AABLZT sutherin_h_Page_106.txt
04fa53f76d2f8a04dc5d108c80856826
c68730b997755e25299fadee717d82e4227e1259
1726 F20101124_AABMGB sutherin_h_Page_061.txt
78d31089e7ff4286284e6eaa61596e05
ca3721ad92d8c52dbd0ecb79dea2ed9a76a9dfa9
14460 F20101124_AABMFN sutherin_h_Page_111.QC.jpg
f437ee1015da69ccd62c5fc2689d8407
ce674311be76f06e8cae8cfbc03b7fc71b765649
50029 F20101124_AABMEZ sutherin_h_Page_079.pro
cd0ea907b069270fc766fe845d2d1e56
bd4a963ad7e5305b6616fc56aa860314c0f139d0
5392 F20101124_AABLZU sutherin_h_Page_042thm.jpg
ae6a485802a2cdc6de9362ab9c2ab815
7d4672a655ab1498cddeefa3f6f503f0ca52cf3e
53836 F20101124_AABMGC sutherin_h_Page_021.pro
a167807386473603813fd8685bfec6c1
1bdd14805b22cdff8b5779ddd4945da80075532d
30372 F20101124_AABMFO sutherin_h_Page_089.jpg
d82baafdafd9a4d2035df0f7585db9e9
6278227d90a4f55160c2850f97afb9b5a02b0486
112551 F20101124_AABMGD sutherin_h_Page_044.jp2
5e187ee607a98d2f53fa9ae9e4830fb5
2af6b62ef104337f20066953b81758b007069e5a
104075 F20101124_AABMFP sutherin_h_Page_046.jp2
f526adc62d36d905bb7550e9584af40a
6ed5a54d5cee7592a89f2ebf40d6ab335be9de4d
47900 F20101124_AABLZV sutherin_h_Page_046.pro
a45291ac54ac66a5b6af7eef2543a896
2784bb2b01577b52838e80ef7e75282ccd24a2f4
46822 F20101124_AABMGE sutherin_h_Page_111.jpg
9cf97da59cff5ad1e134f5b4d1d1eac0
29821fb1e533781929d35c594b8efcb18f59541f
512 F20101124_AABMFQ sutherin_h_Page_088.txt
92de2d4151dbe2f7f8a6f01e3354bdfd
feb7ca91ff0aab343986769fa771632ef9bf8f42
123163 F20101124_AABLZW sutherin_h_Page_110.jp2
97b7f766bcb5074ad649a86daa3868e5
f01b4b9943ab3836305ca17f35d9c3d28228d9ee
F20101124_AABMGF sutherin_h_Page_038.tif
87be2f53072e1ad4300dd2c30d10518c
3ff58f5c61aabe4c2021eeb4d9b7464027a73e25
2093 F20101124_AABMFR sutherin_h_Page_027.txt
3320ce6fad31c9f174e2705984311e32
4fb299c0d4819234c160eab92ffe61e89e90c907
6105 F20101124_AABLZX sutherin_h_Page_014thm.jpg
1eb02d11adb512b1f69c6e2c74d7d2f8
599b51004b48856dd45fdd4437b48d63487699d8
1637 F20101124_AABMGG sutherin_h_Page_070.txt
08abf95890da08674a28c4613581b465
bcdddd0970c91bf5be6575188a8adf57218bc214
67120 F20101124_AABMFS sutherin_h_Page_019.jpg
b4f65a4c31f8dd630a91b7091c8ce628
f0543303bf10b42e3785aacdfd45611f4e066ef0
6477 F20101124_AABLZY sutherin_h_Page_030thm.jpg
eb77fea90258371694f1cccc7a314fb4
0129a05b8e2bd486984c524b6fe2e5ec55321765
2080 F20101124_AABMGH sutherin_h_Page_084.txt
b794ee92ea26f92d633cb906a7b5b765
4f7c714292c2136faf2e4738ddfddaeb1471b6cc
3470 F20101124_AABMFT sutherin_h_Page_086.pro
73582915f337e2afe25a91eb20c92785
541d00e11135f94da505871ace424345b1d6ce63
1673 F20101124_AABLZZ sutherin_h_Page_104thm.jpg
57b3e128f120781170c265434114a2df
c8644ebfbf328fcc5a83a7463056ab2723f9e58e
6353 F20101124_AABMGI sutherin_h_Page_023thm.jpg
2d978becbce796e8855d9e9a0c9b4558
3cac8a25147dd9858506d60f5995f8933434ea9f
2325 F20101124_AABMFU sutherin_h_Page_109.txt
f5753da5508932d117a9464eb5c464bb
1b5cf3b81c78d11afabd985a3c49e2a40b011cdc
71060 F20101124_AABMGJ sutherin_h_Page_080.jpg
d498beb08ad3ecdecd06f8abb8b04483
217495ed1a9eda9fe069f8f940eb410209b8bcb4
833420 F20101124_AABMFV sutherin_h_Page_068.jp2
fc07aa1b2d1a2a236b3824c75d5b99b3
435790cbcf0c6803b913df6ce069550ce2ec7f9f
F20101124_AABMGK sutherin_h_Page_049.tif
be7dd594779203215fd1b37ac8eebebe
76177022b4395627feeb35a198060d8a34849beb
F20101124_AABMFW sutherin_h_Page_096.tif
01523b93502f0ad8746894c968bdc9a7
b9db7105640cb5f2245bd4e8fba650a7dc54a226
2010 F20101124_AABMGL sutherin_h_Page_024.txt
80ec48ce60ea8e3082fa446ea80f266d
cfae39c91abaf6b63e6a9cbf61b697fe169dfa5b
1979 F20101124_AABMFX sutherin_h_Page_055.txt
8905b39f418d45c0fbbcc4f5e7e087ff
382c0f755ee8ab12e5f596b4fee7bc9a2639d35e
13216 F20101124_AABMHA sutherin_h_Page_104.jpg
32bd8e607102156c62d1e76183a0d5b1
904a3425079402ce796d71183308a5bcce076a0f
42425 F20101124_AABMGM sutherin_h_Page_092.jpg
b01201e9f9227c0e8c0a02d9fa4dc313
5e9f45a0157646617b765a4750d87ce674aaedb4
68052 F20101124_AABMFY sutherin_h_Page_054.jpg
d2f3f3d3ae3c885dfe67e845bbb39ade
c4c9a5967be2e8bc18af4e701d7cc9e5d15ec8ab
953370 F20101124_AABMHB sutherin_h_Page_052.jp2
b5c76a6ca249b154e66f5fbd89a7eac2
f826eef816227a2bf061669b9818c74faa2f003b
14117 F20101124_AABMGN sutherin_h_Page_103.pro
657782a32da35c235753110053a4915c
6deb148800b12308a319c4314f66e2c73f18e45f
F20101124_AABMFZ sutherin_h_Page_059.tif
883492be953aa2368e64ba3c47675fff
c11ae956d79e82be3a96555487e9e4ea92bcb27e
6130 F20101124_AABMGO sutherin_h_Page_078thm.jpg
e3d7bc3b6c0afcc3128c7303ef7cb9cc
f20e0c1c2c7e0e9e90144fcfea7a451e1ecd2ef6
111323 F20101124_AABMHC sutherin_h_Page_029.jp2
897f76e7af5eb6f49cc3e6dd9b17c7cb
e1a9374442ac27c278582ec0f1501a05fe2d2b4e
1551 F20101124_AABMGP sutherin_h_Page_060.txt
75d4197e35482a535b975474e4baad63
a36be88fa76d9485cd94ca39ca652cac3bfb7579
6773 F20101124_AABMHD sutherin_h_Page_043thm.jpg
d7a3aab9200a1ba8590313bd05cd4f85
ba4f00b55cd3841e113c77429afaaa19bbde6b69
105981 F20101124_AABMGQ sutherin_h_Page_017.jp2
0132504e1edd73ce0bfc65380c9af6ce
6f7a132a505355172a42357c493ebf3be9247b74
103724 F20101124_AABMHE sutherin_h_Page_045.jp2
6caea79a7ad1e5ecd9efa0f97a4ce729
6b597c2b95257e70c889e3a1624ef058e6239220
68062 F20101124_AABMGR sutherin_h_Page_052.jpg
669c53e9ac72e2a500826aa7b8a64736
8b0b7100d20c8a819b51c50f738e86759ab874d2
2712 F20101124_AABMHF sutherin_h_Page_088thm.jpg
0e3a9ef28fb075699d988324de1724e5
57adb1e653bcae9fa90137a05866d3e212839d88
22421 F20101124_AABMGS sutherin_h_Page_059.QC.jpg
2782cdd182291885cfe9bcc37beaec72
a6dbb06ba8d495626af26e40cfa8d731340277d4
58718 F20101124_AABMHG sutherin_h_Page_018.jpg
b01df3bc41d1a9a4bae6d23c11d03d99
cec90a9c252aae60d86fdbbf70f36ac5d4061499
17041 F20101124_AABMGT sutherin_h_Page_112.QC.jpg
77c4a71578874ba7b466e6c8be620d08
b501fa804912812ad5cef691f8d93ed173706d21
F20101124_AABMHH sutherin_h_Page_020.tif
ce7fa7cbbc6d8df998b1a0954d4c5f88
772144533a1be7279c549f6f9c55aeeb89bb9edf
34629 F20101124_AABMGU sutherin_h_Page_058.pro
0be51da5cfb829e0c250a5f0d4e910aa
908e28e7b7be59f58dd438131031fcd727a73456
10839 F20101124_AABMHI sutherin_h_Page_099.QC.jpg
6b186b0f837d53c1adb2b42f57c069ba
51e75fd1e07ce513964fa54774a87e86b2dd5975
27327 F20101124_AABMGV sutherin_h_Page_088.jp2
efdc6642742932e0110ca61e7fe5a05b
b015d8fa18e43ee29a671384900cac71ee346cf9
47593 F20101124_AABMHJ sutherin_h_Page_060.jpg
10ef34cf227957b2ad1990cdb4b0ab36
9d1292f1b681dd34686107ff3738f3b9cf4cb856
15523 F20101124_AABMGW sutherin_h_Page_095.QC.jpg
671f28f16ad30572174b81bb95bab78e
54edeb98ba48e753fc5edc718ce7ff17291aa0dd
6092 F20101124_AABMHK sutherin_h_Page_085thm.jpg
cd566ef3e24735ab27157fe8e67d70af
7de579f8b9f1cee5a576e1a101c36a1b4c6ec892
50677 F20101124_AABMGX sutherin_h_Page_074.pro
4f309f0a9d24c6e5b668b4d772154d97
d3c80f28571019fa69b0fb991948cb1635a04d4f
F20101124_AABMIA sutherin_h_Page_077.tif
c159fca120d5a457f95b5eb8912ba701
11b7dbe367d1c2717df95e544fc411deb79fd109
F20101124_AABMHL sutherin_h_Page_004.tif
c83b8a15b88bbd25228a59c809323c87
6cc733da21845daff7d6f88da7f7ce4ae5e952f2
F20101124_AABMGY sutherin_h_Page_086.tif
0b7b7a7232720f2289fc9bc3b8cca41e
64e86a564bebfac39274aa88537f51abc703c083
108553 F20101124_AABMIB sutherin_h_Page_066.jp2
abbe5952e3052b656bb078fdc9aa014e
d42e9aab2cb2e2ca1c4aa348b6f913e4f43351ff
77485 F20101124_AABMHM sutherin_h_Page_109.jpg
63debffbf46e584a834464764238e7f9
f61269ebdc25f394ae6d2f8239307eaa0c673a4a
51906 F20101124_AABMGZ sutherin_h_Page_066.pro
392cfc0cac81ec7e56b0b62aa22681c1
8255628b6ad049b403ada671b17750c691e57252
F20101124_AABMIC sutherin_h_Page_079thm.jpg
f2ee000edab0eaf202b02afbd2e4990f
5906575a69a62a39b3e754b09f15a16451c8443d
21211 F20101124_AABMHN sutherin_h_Page_006.QC.jpg
fade46049470ce47576b64cf0bbbe0ef
bb44bbb208b051d732b3eba887455a51b924ca4a
34393 F20101124_AABMHO sutherin_h_Page_051.pro
9489975ca626bf6a0edfb7a1a53ec7d7
d2a938d50dd63cb55cb9849144286d1c166e9d85
F20101124_AABMID sutherin_h_Page_098.tif
b7cd38e5c62533a498c7f7fb9eda8b1d
78dce35865230cd665f2018774d99f87e3541f18
5410 F20101124_AABMHP sutherin_h_Page_097thm.jpg
19fb4c7b5a9f6d96410bf4d4f5af1537
2170f9072c6eedf32456ce042b701885aed3342d
22380 F20101124_AABMIE sutherin_h_Page_069.QC.jpg
6c37dbda1bfcd11fcae89535ffb4e42d
c6cd9540f3ff85c7f91ee28a88e212544bb21ac2
6560 F20101124_AABMHQ sutherin_h_Page_063thm.jpg
eb365e35017e5b7aa94c7e5934a411ed
890277b9a892784ac9afc29d80347736567a9f0a
3255 F20101124_AABMIF sutherin_h_Page_005.txt
6dfbb19677e8a9de27d2b2a9b7ebcd4d
9038f447a356c52841cba56c1204682538493c43
31981 F20101124_AABMHR sutherin_h_Page_047.pro
def4c0d4a10907d2b3510a49680c7eb1
1092a74b0cc5c31627f5030045bf87b2c63889b9
19365 F20101124_AABMIG sutherin_h_Page_108.QC.jpg
5bb5adef95856b32798bc54aa36c3eb8
970d0743c54798d5d0cc030f12fe56f7e0f1132d
69057 F20101124_AABMHS sutherin_h_Page_083.jpg
762b752fa115b03534ce720fbe9eb272
c26846ae0d213425064cc52884a1df74afd5217c
49776 F20101124_AABMIH sutherin_h_Page_038.pro
39bf25c6c25d68c627c54ffe4a676623
dae154de0b2482fe921b19894b63fe5cf16ae070
73105 F20101124_AABMHT sutherin_h_Page_112.jp2
b3be6892cff7448bbe806dc82db74743
4721682f34d21ec5713085a96d34523370ca8a40
69552 F20101124_AABMII sutherin_h_Page_069.jpg
3c5c9bb92ac5565721b8120e705b8836
781fe22af48a6381b6b0931641fcf374704148f9
69449 F20101124_AABMHU sutherin_h_Page_062.jpg
0156fe4839a286a9f172e858a0fd77c5
92d193773cb0dd9654f55cc8893082ecd6dbf506
15225 F20101124_AABMIJ sutherin_h_Page_004.QC.jpg
25d7ee9abd2c93b9a82563ff3ac01b9e
4d35781599fa20b875163c38f231630cae9090a0
2887 F20101124_AABMHV sutherin_h_Page_056.pro
7c01cfe143f83df37eb53ee5456b2f81
018beb698c8a4a24c6dba68ba8b778cc694b89dc
201 F20101124_AABMIK sutherin_h_Page_092.txt
0c0e70ecc3468638fa6aa4f66cb0ed11
4e3dcc0fd8bf24825ab596308e05bbd238a96b83
50383 F20101124_AABMHW sutherin_h_Page_017.pro
ee8a4eb26578bebb7d3ae61e86e8376c
cad938bfd7256d7c8e6f26afe1928a8df589bda4
19924 F20101124_AABMJA sutherin_h_Page_070.QC.jpg
3959223e1f19e45fa25fccf0146aee97
2d8de4df330d22efa072811d281685d29862383e
5382 F20101124_AABMIL sutherin_h_Page_047thm.jpg
d0f922b9d3bd6d01765d984b97d29f3f
3380702f6d9224db14dffb98f57f380711ff63c3
19695 F20101124_AABMHX sutherin_h_Page_035.QC.jpg
c040ac3a351e5aca19317ec946effab4
d59d4a38109ed05c2534d78b463d434a867057c0
1754 F20101124_AABMJB sutherin_h_Page_037.txt
8fcb986f15f127e1e38ac336092dfd1f
e595a503f49cff6a7634aae6bcf67eae330a5a97
640 F20101124_AABMIM sutherin_h_Page_094.txt
7b67b69f3f86ef69555cbbef24a3c196
375f3707b9e18c7d40a9fcdee8fd2e487e5892a0
F20101124_AABMHY sutherin_h_Page_007.jp2
402dae2436469c9332ea82debdbab647
74c46253193c604efd3b120fc47ee66885e34344
48871 F20101124_AABMJC sutherin_h_Page_068.jpg
b00bfa880b5a2fda1f41e5c5796a3cec
ca0170c7aaa4771fd8f387ae0307f53b68569349
4769 F20101124_AABMIN sutherin_h_Page_057thm.jpg
f6f3134b33726854225d1d342a100087
235388f88610af6e3835a361a271dc52081c6b7f
2051 F20101124_AABMHZ sutherin_h_Page_075.txt
d2af54f59f8312a4f9f67c00c0430856
18c9d21e508bf098a016c6552db1bb379dce55c5
156 F20101124_AABMJD sutherin_h_Page_091.txt
7f36608f89e1089237c1cd4ba3ca4db5
5a171d424d01fe22ea799a7130b891273865154e
23715 F20101124_AABMIO sutherin_h_Page_029.QC.jpg
84c20fb76657ab17cfe260b887dcc9b1
599f34edbd86a51d768eaa6a9077c54d29ff5ba6
F20101124_AABMIP sutherin_h_Page_082.QC.jpg
00b417fcc7f2f24013582ebfe7653429
b604db1baa5fd637bd6f04800407172e03af0836
100792 F20101124_AABMJE sutherin_h_Page_085.jp2
f74d2e2481451b012e94720cccc3973b
326111e3b07ef803f8b85af4b6973cabc43de77f
F20101124_AABMIQ sutherin_h_Page_053.QC.jpg
dad56a25fcbb57fe5dc01fc72bdf03e8
945546086545d2c2bcbebf80b2d5aec4c5d9470f
48042 F20101124_AABMJF sutherin_h_Page_078.pro
6f115552e7959d19a1ae76b5b986539d
ffdfb7c4090405ef11f02677ba3130ddfac858ad
4363 F20101124_AABMIR sutherin_h_Page_104.QC.jpg
5f1de75da53103cee0d89365ec95afad
113949ae523ea53bbab57f829a1efb76dd7057a8
8096 F20101124_AABMIS sutherin_h_Page_103.QC.jpg
48482c6188f99687710c63203e4db6a8
e448297b0f47735fb0b01e36fd7f431ed160f0db
50680 F20101124_AABMJG sutherin_h_Page_026.pro
888045d8783a0e9eece289301a812aa9
3ed67695254f15249e15e1cd251162c4c5f63e86
22814 F20101124_AABMIT sutherin_h_Page_016.QC.jpg
a5c46b8e5ba006af0f4d5158893912f8
0593ea05424d5e077a4631771b7c9438441e990c
1946 F20101124_AABMJH sutherin_h_Page_062.txt
5a4e6f6cac8655fb280f2c532b667120
861f0b98bd7dad90e3bfd0a7d588fc3ff4e11a36
46380 F20101124_AABMIU sutherin_h_Page_004.jpg
5a6f17a87388543f6a9d9862dd1a0ef8
7c81ea70deb1df06a6f8bba3bd7ff7e7624f4b8a
1051966 F20101124_AABMJI sutherin_h_Page_092.jp2
10558516cee2be6a0cf9d2f8ee463a6e
74ee39a39858cf7cf6911c746bf6e0c047be36d4
2008 F20101124_AABMIV sutherin_h_Page_013.txt
d22f0dd0f7a5fee59c8ebe4854444bdc
a0aef130318beeacec529f5f11fc6f6c8ce9f583
34790 F20101124_AABMJJ sutherin_h_Page_094.jp2
f90d9df4c6c30344d3b03c2d591ae6bf
2aa3f1ee70ffaf6836fd694b79887482a51a95ef
13753 F20101124_AABMIW sutherin_h_Page_087.QC.jpg
7994cde4cad9a49edc0a3d233f70e896
d9c5b5613f2be11ad00a9dcd1be87070cfd967a5
34919 F20101124_AABMJK sutherin_h_Page_102.jp2
c8f25d0ec1e2128e4d8cca1f6b012e2e
46b30d047e1edf420ee6c97981532380d7299579
23736 F20101124_AABMIX sutherin_h_Page_015.QC.jpg
27e060c7a56325837868b505360fa3ab
923aa26316d513515a31310ef99ee13293c997de
66810 F20101124_AABMKA sutherin_h_Page_009.jpg
b89a1561996993c1896eaa3633d342b7
ebb96939ae50f3f71294c3fd65a12518a67d48a7
F20101124_AABMJL sutherin_h_Page_021.tif
e154c86db390fdce78c4a1b494bc8280
4de585e7550a56141a0daebf30c388437b95e324
21665 F20101124_AABMIY sutherin_h_Page_098.pro
24216ec5003e429b69e3c5f510f6c6ff
137aed12e3d0ab0f921346e10dc9233adff19a95
61471 F20101124_AABMKB sutherin_h_Page_012.jpg
0c9c58896eb51bc970f4c478ce40fd1d
9507e8db8131d145b3905f385e2c69b0f3ec3f06
32389 F20101124_AABMJM sutherin_h_Page_060.pro
2fa0140133cdb515c4589362e86453a1
b134c97ba02e1856acabab0cd59c79d89fab9642
111198 F20101124_AABMIZ sutherin_h_Page_081.jp2
1c1c097ea4390ee40c4835edca51691b
86da9934cb3d0570597ae0a3f97e5e611c3834cf
65642 F20101124_AABMKC sutherin_h_Page_014.jpg
6f5916ab913237b98d40b2ea301a4c73
8a97be598619f72001c9c42b79c66b44efbfac3f
43678 F20101124_AABMJN sutherin_h_Page_097.pro
f5cc9cb47410300c5716622e7835265a
0bb2d8335b0981a03e24c791638303dd185eccb2
71569 F20101124_AABMKD sutherin_h_Page_015.jpg
f5f9ff26e784e18999ad7721891896dc
f60d0ccdfad35ce7a4a64077d758579584f9b703
1945 F20101124_AABMJO sutherin_h_Page_078.txt
56cac89d4949f56b2c45b7d0d23e6726
cbb17393ef0d4728b6a70a981b4da9560f6af381
69962 F20101124_AABMKE sutherin_h_Page_017.jpg
0215c56a71c9185d3811e4948011cddc
617c2e7f0306f45a9d1a5fc3f688bbabacd67f99
6761 F20101124_AABMJP sutherin_h_Page_041thm.jpg
d9e1a8c8f0508a81d5523bc94647d570
b39a9ad717693b02a11c238ffb4929aff08e02c4
5885 F20101124_AABMJQ sutherin_h_Page_106thm.jpg
d0e6f8cfbe1d0cd49ad524eb3b2d969e
7f140fb5ecd1c33fe31f79b47e9e46b7bf70193f
71303 F20101124_AABMKF sutherin_h_Page_026.jpg
6abb646dea598eac902eb85e415c3087
24f8507ceb41293e411577f32efc4e053a690c6f
23321 F20101124_AABMJR sutherin_h_Page_028.QC.jpg
f753a5d2f0e6202e39e4574afc5e1b55
2533f06f43496dc597446971da2f855fc1ad315e
71906 F20101124_AABMKG sutherin_h_Page_028.jpg
c84a01679e1a6957df9e27171304ed6e
37955e692efca436f00fec72fbd922bdf88493bb
131134 F20101124_AABMJS UFE0011461_00001.mets
aa34a218362baa57ec9c8f266a27284e
2653e2af5d41a4c97060d41799a23f75e4863398
72069 F20101124_AABMKH sutherin_h_Page_030.jpg
6890546ec8d4e747365d340bc9b73c6c
5b109df14f96fe7e96647c276c4048fa89a4ab74
65183 F20101124_AABMKI sutherin_h_Page_031.jpg
6adb495a18ce978d68982458a4fa4076
32fbefd3b43fe23bf2440d120d9ae4cfce2be41e
63653 F20101124_AABMKJ sutherin_h_Page_032.jpg
e4e11c75ec65ab7b9c9ff446ae965712
7aaceb61d5462fb01c85d1e0a5ab2d5aff40124e
26980 F20101124_AABMJV sutherin_h_Page_001.jpg
12ef6a7284c830d7a35b09be9a63f446
896feebd34f54afd22356a613130779ca8c71b1b
68325 F20101124_AABMKK sutherin_h_Page_033.jpg
9d3f64d25dd94a47f9cce851e40fe1ca
111621f2b6e9296f704e9ba1d876ed43791cb640
10245 F20101124_AABMJW sutherin_h_Page_002.jpg
923696ce1fdcd98a4d52bf97187f5d97
47b2d5ba5be8e4e8d8fb1ade7ead47f384b7be4e
69586 F20101124_AABMLA sutherin_h_Page_064.jpg
37a55d6f347defcae3c5c8363138b12b
125e6e006888aa3b8afb1b03eab7853ce1db0752
51334 F20101124_AABMKL sutherin_h_Page_034.jpg
24245e0acf10b366c8bedf6d69ad43fb
32d69b1a1f13cc5d42e4a1cc70b8d4a979d6c7dd
10940 F20101124_AABMJX sutherin_h_Page_003.jpg
10ca863c97ed561daa08d079f95ac932
e108cf483d916d7d1652ba69c13e5732597599c6
58258 F20101124_AABMLB sutherin_h_Page_067.jpg
53bc4104b74e93499ea6a9845ddb3cbf
e54c3db0e4c0598f231a525b032b7fbc962b9c55
62514 F20101124_AABMKM sutherin_h_Page_035.jpg
04443cc756f46b79e2c2b29fc3f750cb
70796d4eac7b4da75d1dbf81033501f8886b075f
64480 F20101124_AABMJY sutherin_h_Page_005.jpg
52de85bc56612d9838a0f9091f2371ee
ec2c6a151734f15fe0e777b1d33c48d22bbb9479
63031 F20101124_AABMLC sutherin_h_Page_070.jpg
9011612bac692172e58853700e813e69
9ec42604f600ceb2e4ee5715cec1e764de1ac33b
56544 F20101124_AABMKN sutherin_h_Page_036.jpg
8edc03904b0ae4414d94582b33599451
2249394d253a7bfe54f7db629134811697f5aafe
17352 F20101124_AABMJZ sutherin_h_Page_008.jpg
dc59239b6d3f188bb89b22579a72e1db
ad3331a1495e8569a935eb149554c61334406b2e
45731 F20101124_AABMLD sutherin_h_Page_072.jpg
1efef45ecb615d9ba9e45d6ccfa318d0
e79746f46b119b7fa1e58807f89ed747f4330630
57870 F20101124_AABMKO sutherin_h_Page_037.jpg
93eeb203145e8b46d578fb9917106272
693e71ecc4921a6b0f2e899049314b85f2a99553
65224 F20101124_AABMLE sutherin_h_Page_073.jpg
a32695f070b83eedfb346d83295526d3
edac424c4fe391a2ec0c357acf432d4d8129274f
76402 F20101124_AABMKP sutherin_h_Page_041.jpg
3b4e4da143ef284d23f0228c4e40a54c
b806535c98fac526cd5008866d9ebba3908dabfd
71820 F20101124_AABMLF sutherin_h_Page_074.jpg
09eec43db508929dbeb29e6e4f2bab85
7c0b5dee00cd37d0b375d23b68fdb6151718e241
74794 F20101124_AABMKQ sutherin_h_Page_043.jpg
7a9f68f8510e8d50c77e6f6127df07e8
59664328af7919af02e3180f94c5b0087b9f70d6
74600 F20101124_AABMKR sutherin_h_Page_044.jpg
af847fe3de24cdb1d14361dc13174135
d26ca4c57f6630291b2d7acd18c41645a6435468
72614 F20101124_AABMLG sutherin_h_Page_075.jpg
c79c9b5aba49081bc0fe82503840e30c
dd33c1e66ce0c3d8ca77520bb75e6d0d047337ea
69535 F20101124_AABMKS sutherin_h_Page_046.jpg
e1b2b101f52fd63b88ba7fa3d177f58a
dfd12ce011d771d88eb617ac7a28486b32c36849
68530 F20101124_AABMLH sutherin_h_Page_076.jpg
396d7a1e383d32e570b2d4f6127e7a37
03eabcc7a37c0846cba2d406bd295a431e0485eb
54343 F20101124_AABMKT sutherin_h_Page_049.jpg
0657d67271d902d60c3e7e6c2a035001
5a9a92d012ff050d79969537c785aa0867d9fd6a
69117 F20101124_AABMLI sutherin_h_Page_078.jpg
1e867de8dd8f43fe0872ca936161b2d8
73ab05dada651f9a8774befdd520df03e6db5b47
57306 F20101124_AABMKU sutherin_h_Page_050.jpg
9cee6b7130eeda19307ea920db776711
78652486061daed59d0c34694c8886013a87d826
72058 F20101124_AABMLJ sutherin_h_Page_079.jpg
86b3d9e94dfef5819d23efa4115559c5
a2cb590c848768433047eebe52d64d1f44f13a8e
68063 F20101124_AABMKV sutherin_h_Page_053.jpg
35c35923276be6a3d31e7381dac3e979
60b14d90f1ca4c959bcb28559df93b361d023596
66799 F20101124_AABMLK sutherin_h_Page_085.jpg
76ab3ca9f34831706be83c1400175519
ea0b111a93bc93f7c54860dcfb7327dbb84b1bff
70091 F20101124_AABMKW sutherin_h_Page_055.jpg
c78235b63a4fa731c8f86e3d0ae161ab
ceac55882a724ee6e9fe4d2b711d2ac3ef3947eb
42201 F20101124_AABMLL sutherin_h_Page_086.jpg
561faa8b03a3e2902a4bc3c3307a26fb
1efea35a84343189ffda400223debb1da5261afb
47820 F20101124_AABMKX sutherin_h_Page_056.jpg
79293f27692d349f276f12ed096b1489
ca248f67a4881053c4f13a4b0ae88b11b95b37a4
108933 F20101124_AABMMA sutherin_h_Page_013.jp2
0e3adb1c4316dd2ca0de284e84db054c
f8bb0543e0ffed259617fce17d4f9208fb8da715
44396 F20101124_AABMLM sutherin_h_Page_087.jpg
fe3d0f7b7455d6beb88ea8cb72d5125f
4be1a40c526c6ffb1c0738638f1cb6f58cbe57e9
43838 F20101124_AABMKY sutherin_h_Page_057.jpg
349a122382b13639f27a329754d2cf42
c9cb065161aa50f51e175a3f2da105082510c3e3
99850 F20101124_AABMMB sutherin_h_Page_014.jp2
2902341096712baf1660a68365cbc9ae
30b999da23f16fedca0f0d1fb233c71b4b499369
38408 F20101124_AABMLN sutherin_h_Page_091.jpg
9a942e46f623d0d4bc4845e65327c121
a9fbc5ed9502bc85122f5361644b3fefc0daddb2
73862 F20101124_AABMKZ sutherin_h_Page_063.jpg
7f9d3b4350862271c674207da55ed3b6
4d52ee9e9f961c91e240285fc2f3f2b1475b762e
110125 F20101124_AABMMC sutherin_h_Page_015.jp2
8064b0e8e9f8e1c83e4deae1f23aa26f
a6bbd95562916a1efa6078e776a5f0d44da015e1
30270 F20101124_AABMLO sutherin_h_Page_094.jpg
0c48bfc6a900391cb37acaa1c8f11e71
44b66ca8ec992ff7cd287e7c33a16e95b23c7470
87742 F20101124_AABMMD sutherin_h_Page_018.jp2
d5250b5f2b145e38d706a60c4b51d4c4
e20184d7f9ef5e59718efe2e4d32842c32062be4
43820 F20101124_AABMLP sutherin_h_Page_095.jpg
156d49ed429a986fcd0d7d65307df22e
43ba794a50ae5ce5ad591802726afaa69b7f577d
98928 F20101124_AABMME sutherin_h_Page_019.jp2
862846b20049240fb30818619e1ad228
df1e9f943176becd0bc5cf88d334b80839e11e26
59308 F20101124_AABMLQ sutherin_h_Page_097.jpg
e3b2762bf3b442f809915cb4dae08039
214845c7678472afcf6c794137bc54d24da3303a
115628 F20101124_AABMMF sutherin_h_Page_021.jp2
ec30bce9076abaff547109e8f4ffd5cb
0cf4be9afa843e554d76f8d68ee2b7f19efb2366
29480 F20101124_AABMLR sutherin_h_Page_098.jpg
bc9fd21405a18d1677b86f6ca1de7783
37b255a0be55f726b2685a0dfc467b71772291e5
109639 F20101124_AABMMG sutherin_h_Page_023.jp2
c6bbb6a9c264d21f9f7fd5cba2901b00
a8c7911459213f251f2a745a42c3c530d74081c5
29100 F20101124_AABMLS sutherin_h_Page_099.jpg
9471f35aa9f2507f4f1cfd1bc1df8e7e
274500f630728675211ed5478a318ce48fdb4b57
29111 F20101124_AABMLT sutherin_h_Page_101.jpg
7ed17ee988cc9b55141bae12247168a3
71bc0f8d1679095bb68d29a28fce75ce7a2b8c8a
108370 F20101124_AABMMH sutherin_h_Page_026.jp2
2e48fbcc5360a76402feb339e0745b15
dc63568242cf4f29baf496c221e71639695c9f01
F20101124_AABMLU sutherin_h_Page_102.jpg
8328cbce78e4fbeb5dfbca0fcf2e50a2
b4afc9b969ff46a50d92365ae43fc2c86769b1da
110990 F20101124_AABMMI sutherin_h_Page_027.jp2
f2edbb8162ff93c0875d9355996899fb
f2f97948a7b0067039d7791e7b8fefe73150d0b7
27215 F20101124_AABMLV sutherin_h_Page_001.jp2
7dae6d48c32524e586cb18620d1ebd08
3c6443261e309d06ab76d5554c2237fcc6da47f4
100054 F20101124_AABMMJ sutherin_h_Page_033.jp2
87abf18a3ba41abf8065b3f57347c60a
bc67a0c5b5c5544ca77b2d77baf92d1c8635452e
65706 F20101124_AABMLW sutherin_h_Page_004.jp2
302b1fdb6d99603e76c5909f4e32370e
6f1e3c0f69610a24f6c169416e6e1ba708ef3cda
955318 F20101124_AABMMK sutherin_h_Page_035.jp2
f77c5ceceeb0e19f21079277c929ce86
67d9038ae7c74736610bbbcff618263e4ce9bc96
1051978 F20101124_AABMLX sutherin_h_Page_005.jp2
09e834227803a05264d062adc523ea8f
7b72807cc375cb0ff192b339638d74881d1cf494
103801 F20101124_AABMNA sutherin_h_Page_078.jp2
acffb32e6308b04f4acfab1ac79d7670
ab2dd111c0fb8760e1b437fb1a86be1be74beb78
679359 F20101124_AABMML sutherin_h_Page_036.jp2
5578ca417e0dc0d9601c4d7ae7a4a020
99a8e03d871b3c99b6ec770685054a70e0998ac5
F20101124_AABMLY sutherin_h_Page_009.jp2
9655109b950042e8d461dcb87b26856b
115329100ca4147d10a5783ea802ad337abdb33a
107200 F20101124_AABMNB sutherin_h_Page_079.jp2
284eca9092b661332cae411b6a4fba2a
23b198bb4b39c23abdd34149a52c6103a5a68db6
104565 F20101124_AABMMM sutherin_h_Page_040.jp2
aaf197ebc2dece58b47cffe953558f39
e861b08e868f88b0f234f2299d01d9d5bb99f719
92308 F20101124_AABMLZ sutherin_h_Page_012.jp2
0ff2299d1c5fb3713a7c29ad45c2649c
12794bc9c370125c19c81c7be7e195ca67bd1f0b
112651 F20101124_AABMNC sutherin_h_Page_082.jp2
36d99b27480e3d5fc06acef592504eb5
f235960008686fde4afec31dc4287f0cbf9fd3b1
114995 F20101124_AABMMN sutherin_h_Page_041.jp2
af4b191ab6f17cfba6c297b3053080b1
0f0f2180fc2a8fd94cc3765cf89b9f085796e133
1051969 F20101124_AABMND sutherin_h_Page_087.jp2
5d5fc42f29aa27cc8ad4854fe9551c3d
7055718702d4b0a9f2e6121a0280e16e5678442c
86298 F20101124_AABMMO sutherin_h_Page_042.jp2
50869b76cf9da52d9049563f510b32eb
337de36227c5653df7b75097d4b1ada4a3bcc6ba
583451 F20101124_AABMNE sutherin_h_Page_090.jp2
46dc56d4faa5ad2c936b5cd9d1f9ac16
41de01befd7dda1289c67928bc75b7eb17a5a15e
1051955 F20101124_AABMMP sutherin_h_Page_043.jp2
88974c4798f656dd57ffeb24ed5e5826
f64a969b38f9ca90af15a29d71416e14dcccb491
934193 F20101124_AABMNF sutherin_h_Page_091.jp2
bb699371cf64ddd36c0dd5dc96eae651
911c698ab0c8d8ed0db8914e3764f6585d291d73
74287 F20101124_AABMMQ sutherin_h_Page_047.jp2
a25fb7560472b09352c9065ebe30bee6
afcccaa9e34a571f94ec9c813245bc2c10c57e11
34770 F20101124_AABMNG sutherin_h_Page_096.jp2
7dfa7c6230ff10f68c1ab6baed482508
14ae2a5945cd55ea444ca18b5ba833a7d7464b5a
111476 F20101124_AABMMR sutherin_h_Page_048.jp2
353c60b3cbacba6b909c9bcd6e81aa41
5ea0aefa6677ea109a690af84f61d400ba5e4b90
83149 F20101124_AABMNH sutherin_h_Page_097.jp2
af5bb915fc0bda6084860945ff93fb68
ca191ab66e4a9a2a35975b0930571e2a74a5111b
1051972 F20101124_AABMMS sutherin_h_Page_057.jp2
b36a1111d757200f21f704ae1bd04ac4
39d380aa37bf833829192e99964883c80caa343f
61921 F20101124_AABMMT sutherin_h_Page_061.jp2
b41aba8ea05fb627ddea7c4937f6eed9
c4978ef8e6759a19c4c572f46c8861795c7a8480
34963 F20101124_AABMNI sutherin_h_Page_098.jp2
e0c6a1513ddada01d8c27c7a1d38f5ad
b7a47f43a87494392ce69d5eba20d0f101008087
110923 F20101124_AABMMU sutherin_h_Page_063.jp2
cb4279402713ea05803964ad24cbff4c
e048f2c165a2df7f4ea429a756c6c0bf4fbe4522
35006 F20101124_AABMNJ sutherin_h_Page_100.jp2
ab198301f8f63c2b97a5142ffbe515da
68e06dd498560ebdccaa6fd3324083d8b2aeb6b9
104899 F20101124_AABMMV sutherin_h_Page_064.jp2
fe54cbad625b75614f16d6593281b68c
5a80ff08275da5214c6733a70a269c4f07af4e5a
28623 F20101124_AABMNK sutherin_h_Page_103.jp2
a15d8539934f59a17cc72e2bec150892
88bb431c8559ba8023a9b9f0e43adc572dc94286
106047 F20101124_AABMMW sutherin_h_Page_069.jp2
34aae2a100f5d480cd0cd1f7732b4e28
c0450755597773a48f8af99bf7a7d3d970fd986f
F20101124_AABMOA sutherin_h_Page_027.tif
fd45320ba92c02e6b130d3c6c80469c1
50efc9c946453cb1af7fef149efe2c236bb4d93c
11227 F20101124_AABMNL sutherin_h_Page_104.jp2
9ec5ee372bbb17c4ecb1c25cb4e7c276
78ec8dee0325a2838f63665ddb9a950ac7c06178
65883 F20101124_AABMMX sutherin_h_Page_072.jp2
67f51d408925a82c0fedfe0c666e65b0
2f763e9d2f18bc02d0c41a5a96ef917b5269ae42
F20101124_AABMOB sutherin_h_Page_029.tif
fb7b4e9dbd63e460c60c584b651d1fe2
cb49842ba77ad97e38fb9eb4151e244e91ab1afa
96820 F20101124_AABMNM sutherin_h_Page_108.jp2
d628b3e168a564c4608a2223f8b68bfa
d51ffbdae8b9787b412e1b659371839d5b70a9e0
99334 F20101124_AABMMY sutherin_h_Page_073.jp2
19c29e75f373ed8678997ff1a6caa859
7c94a0e746ccb712d0183e3304d91cf9e3af5961
F20101124_AABMOC sutherin_h_Page_030.tif
c93c3429138ce4c4599af845c58da260
69f21b38839bc357d91619a37f766ceab6796106
F20101124_AABMNN sutherin_h_Page_002.tif
2cf101b2144c5baabecab5b8b4a50583
5b00c7379d29b508676821af23053fa78b04f7c8
110533 F20101124_AABMMZ sutherin_h_Page_077.jp2
b39c474c3089bab0a8c8eb6eae93f70d
9418f4d9cd6497d00031139f2da6a680d4093a66
F20101124_AABMOD sutherin_h_Page_032.tif
647b14405e9a444b982c4d4ed5f8ce0e
f22f40dd8f0c6847e3be5ed14fcdb6196668f872
F20101124_AABMNO sutherin_h_Page_003.tif
ba1ef1bb8414a6cf3fc1786f4209b68d
b3d126d129a9e278bc177893e941c4debf9e8c16
F20101124_AABMNP sutherin_h_Page_005.tif
233605ce982ee3c02c546b81667e66ba
e7daf14f2c2f150711c23f0eb4047534a7e11970
F20101124_AABMOE sutherin_h_Page_034.tif
e42c0230a6099ee0088c4a662e363b98
20f703bf44168c21f7569ac58e4a897c37cfb665
F20101124_AABMNQ sutherin_h_Page_007.tif
0c57c02daad7abad028785f0c67d4ea7
95063ea96b5d33fe3f569de2f08458e3dccf2a6e
F20101124_AABMOF sutherin_h_Page_037.tif
efacc654080770559409c5235e97b5dd
ee95166426e4004c5085dabc4534786f07599ea8
F20101124_AABMNR sutherin_h_Page_008.tif
97b2786ba5a02686517ac607b81897fd
a4a518428ad98a782e8814f22e5e9fabb507d78a
F20101124_AABMOG sutherin_h_Page_039.tif
9d7de2abe521a57daf333c4165a7402b
729799f47dfbab2bcd85d3c0076f20396d7f6f5b
F20101124_AABMNS sutherin_h_Page_009.tif
0a131b51ef974bcacc89adc7782995e7
06d79b7d8dec99ddf0dc5a3a5cfedeec9ac02575
F20101124_AABMOH sutherin_h_Page_040.tif
01b176da95e57b3c4a97e6d41c8e3304
4071deab48f5d10349de8b59c33b5fe7c8f4ca85
F20101124_AABMNT sutherin_h_Page_010.tif
c5e91bec35e0112e55587e6cff5c50b1
1462cf5c784993c6b403a51cd2f37922d1626f61
F20101124_AABMOI sutherin_h_Page_043.tif
9e1f78dfefb75c1df19545644b982351
b23744218263e34957812bf8e0e1b2c1e17d029f
F20101124_AABMNU sutherin_h_Page_013.tif
f7689a03a093fa1e078d87b12de4b99e
58e947d28986e690d67292b44e2590501e7f32f3
F20101124_AABMNV sutherin_h_Page_014.tif
855c1346bef3c6d5966807d45381b44f
b17582938d54b01b55086a14d2d7de66476e0c84
F20101124_AABMOJ sutherin_h_Page_045.tif
8da7e0db5e250edf6fc392cae0d10f23
4b5643e053e5066581e53914a38285ea80dd4a2c
F20101124_AABMNW sutherin_h_Page_016.tif
af49bd23652d21c42a1d40f0253e499c
a6ec49b63999274f8eb52e15919694fb357532a9
F20101124_AABMOK sutherin_h_Page_048.tif
6df39b6a162bba4290421005b6e2ae02
852880bae0b2108554147e3fbfdcb821ae5b8dcd
F20101124_AABMNX sutherin_h_Page_017.tif
ac633b19e10af30b6129b304ee518c08
ca211906d02df5efda0a2390d6a5364e143d484b
F20101124_AABMPA sutherin_h_Page_087.tif
df19fd5a2884cafd8374edfc3a8edf95
062c7b4ee04c7cd13fbdf466b921d57b816fadd2
F20101124_AABMOL sutherin_h_Page_051.tif
cade43386bb012fcc8dec650ecb54437
7237f1a1bad7f5ae8c1b1a0414165c0de6dc8c98
F20101124_AABMNY sutherin_h_Page_025.tif
67cf08e68f83cba4dddbbc92367a9536
a2be503052c2afd811781b2defea725e3219ad6a
F20101124_AABMPB sutherin_h_Page_088.tif
51577d8667eff1c7fb395576e76324f8
b105ccf6fb630a54ecc138c427a1c34961ba54e7
F20101124_AABMOM sutherin_h_Page_052.tif
3417ba46881cd5737461ed22740f85db
854d6bbba318654b62c671ff044598dbe2a2dc96
F20101124_AABMNZ sutherin_h_Page_026.tif
89ab613ce7e85da4564f312d94beb9a5
968949078d833388d4320aab26d6b08fb04ba401
F20101124_AABMPC sutherin_h_Page_093.tif
0c51beac162491e1a26451862518a8f7
b59865b9e403bcd265a50035573ac6b580817ce0
F20101124_AABMON sutherin_h_Page_054.tif
b6a2a9b46f422ebd9e40fa5818206777
1c425ae70efdd189df39ac2e2bf7beb10877f488
F20101124_AABMPD sutherin_h_Page_097.tif
98873d98225d73ff40a01a9ab8e3fad2
2b2e65c891aa3efd81723b00c63c0474df206e6a
F20101124_AABMOO sutherin_h_Page_057.tif
53f75c12a676015dbe40545056f71736
1afeb6400a2175039539b4a0a1cb3f541a896ff9
F20101124_AABMPE sutherin_h_Page_099.tif
048d9f5da1fa30647ae8d6fa286f7a36
165fbcea0f215b3d9a3acfb01843955e9378ab7e
F20101124_AABMOP sutherin_h_Page_058.tif
02a892791a6607455f3d9d677b419e3c
8aac768eee82bf4f040b3849bbec1f91822fd14a
F20101124_AABMPF sutherin_h_Page_101.tif
400f4997562b15a08de02605029c1131
aa971059e3842668c353cea79c8464f5ad26247f
F20101124_AABMOQ sutherin_h_Page_062.tif
5867546a45a7188abbbf2d8174c20744
bd5ac7060ad929cbffaf68c345816092e9c6b9dd
F20101124_AABMPG sutherin_h_Page_102.tif
9a88fd8de81ca9caefa199497c0d5f06
7fc56c139c236f403c66e5dea2f2b643e0e6ad5d
F20101124_AABMOR sutherin_h_Page_063.tif
1d61406115bd636eb059a731854f6e99
e0f69b5042a30d35ceb2be2385294900eecf1e1c
F20101124_AABMPH sutherin_h_Page_105.tif
6fe522fd0f7a625856b983ef8ad03f3b
0aa37683431e22474061706774ed121c255ab44f
F20101124_AABMOS sutherin_h_Page_065.tif
9a4d2a0e51860993fa7ce9dd03a242ac
c9fd604ccbc049c4499a8cca04084282390216e2
F20101124_AABMPI sutherin_h_Page_106.tif
cb298b693a22af8bb76c688c8383b90a
e6dfe1a5bfdeb58ee7f6d8fe4a8d1a5a84f7bbcd
F20101124_AABMOT sutherin_h_Page_067.tif
cb82c6642920f1ecf7c02630b4c73b67
1698b9cf06314c409341174c7b05dfb57f60e06a
F20101124_AABMPJ sutherin_h_Page_108.tif
1a4a2b03cd8f4904f84db9b8405e0d19
2419f2a5fd00ca812194c916349ac9798589fb44
F20101124_AABMOU sutherin_h_Page_068.tif
c2c881cf1a489a5daa551176a20685de
935b21ebb408a12a160d1983118b38bc75f664d7
F20101124_AABMOV sutherin_h_Page_071.tif
2211d72e8c933333bfcdf4482a68ac8d
9752dc9a560c677a702ab34ab0e283ac6635f504
F20101124_AABMPK sutherin_h_Page_109.tif
c2ee80ca9e407c57ad63666cdd4a8d3a
5a8088506ce58e2202f635f3ed5b443bb02b58a7
F20101124_AABMOW sutherin_h_Page_073.tif
464ffeb39e07c162761c7759c32fb7cd
32880d765b04f0c30076e88402d02947be4aaae8
48194 F20101124_AABMQA sutherin_h_Page_040.pro
8feb6c09fde5fe40852a817d182b6062
b0fc238a80f5cceebce6b98b6c37c69390d79c67
F20101124_AABMPL sutherin_h_Page_110.tif
fe68b17c9e08c1fdb2e57d79ec7e5bfe
6a3ff218dec99b6f13765a5d0f040db7dfde6c45
F20101124_AABMOX sutherin_h_Page_075.tif
3ca79ea35a0f118e48fae955dc5823f2
80f8bbdc3fe6c642b02d3dc01857697bea01fabe
53350 F20101124_AABMQB sutherin_h_Page_041.pro
68dcc01403923f153961d33d0388df03
6e6d85710b860d22c668f0ebf588cbbf4dcf7933
F20101124_AABMPM sutherin_h_Page_112.tif
6d425919643f96c19448d47d9dedd663
f4ec44073e2f934be9bf1bbdfeb41cb0befae1d4
F20101124_AABMOY sutherin_h_Page_083.tif
873abbfbd36fd97e9d66ae22f268db06
161a4416e19f0904555aff18b2a311f6462fe129
52181 F20101124_AABMQC sutherin_h_Page_044.pro
93d238ca028e5e217294685437b2e39b
0f5aeb9a8bddb0f3aad3cc45faf163d9e6e35b7b
29646 F20101124_AABMPN sutherin_h_Page_004.pro
e937e5041f86d90bc0c29fd0d38bcfb1
348df44e80c0f0191581d44696d8dc3a5fb87c9b
F20101124_AABMOZ sutherin_h_Page_084.tif
d676551d3af91d3b4db8c465a08f1dc8
03dc4f79098161dd5ddd909b5ebca8ede39383f4
48218 F20101124_AABMQD sutherin_h_Page_045.pro
a98eaffac14cd555cb7308204f51806a
9e9ec6c9fc1b2914ce8038067b1075a7d24c7d27
78585 F20101124_AABMPO sutherin_h_Page_005.pro
d62ed6f2649dbbea8fada05667ccfc01
d0149c00372f44bf904310224124832dd8443972
51539 F20101124_AABMQE sutherin_h_Page_048.pro
6f605377c9694413e6f8973d9ecfe3c9
efc4219373da69f8466af089cc99e2c1d69c4a74
58877 F20101124_AABMPP sutherin_h_Page_007.pro
9c4ff5ef3a767ac99ac28d29bc1ac8d8
7c4025ac3ef99c7ec8259636fead1a1ce2bc46ea
38233 F20101124_AABMQF sutherin_h_Page_050.pro
0f0904ae40c7e7b5b90e595c4c571cc5
5de685ec1203bd2dd587df8f73b43397aa227a7c
40187 F20101124_AABMPQ sutherin_h_Page_010.pro
feae9f7f821860e806b502ad5269fd5f
c5628fc206beefe23710ce79c0756c71dd4800a1
34666 F20101124_AABMQG sutherin_h_Page_053.pro
3c8e2de1427cf1c21f4ff6ddea6b1309
4055e30f062d89258cdd17037b6404d72fb33305
42693 F20101124_AABMPR sutherin_h_Page_012.pro
c8a1610dfa7f398b69e110cbe2089302
b0b2cc5ba8f72be019c3612131d8d1aa13733bfa
48469 F20101124_AABMQH sutherin_h_Page_059.pro
4da955d8ac1be8ef9a0e77e6421147db
398715fd8dee8b209821345fb197bb11a10b8a14
51184 F20101124_AABMPS sutherin_h_Page_015.pro
e0f1fe29abe80c3909b3f5ecb2621fc5
a237f755a3f107f2afc5b16ccb356628ef98da1a
31169 F20101124_AABMQI sutherin_h_Page_061.pro
f3066c773172be1fd9bb61cb2da9a2ff
912761d8216884f96d3f89526200ac7ce4f5b58b
40943 F20101124_AABMPT sutherin_h_Page_018.pro
79ac2ed549eee08c31d2550d6ff4d1d1
dd74b90aff4460fc298ed00ede74c972416e5c27
53411 F20101124_AABMQJ sutherin_h_Page_063.pro
701bf2d721ec712c7e16c4cea1e80af6
a134ec786dedd1bf16b62b4bb3dd3c420520d3a1
51452 F20101124_AABMPU sutherin_h_Page_020.pro
076fc855f7277e75cd4132f9e952c752
f57445a63b584bef042ff0eb58e2b6c8c81a8c03
39649 F20101124_AABMQK sutherin_h_Page_067.pro
6694cf0e86d594fb4266cab1e86723c6
69567599c4cbf437b7c59a9c813d29b4626d94e0
51077 F20101124_AABMPV sutherin_h_Page_024.pro
62f8085f7924ea0ddb7efb9d938bc701
1ad4d98166e23a3a49ed13638c82b3cd43e9b6bf
52424 F20101124_AABMPW sutherin_h_Page_027.pro
aa71370afba0ef9537b12aaf97098c85
3c0860d67f79a0aa62d4fb9d3b9ba056b2b067d0
15236 F20101124_AABMQL sutherin_h_Page_068.pro
3eb29f6aeae8fe89c690474829922aef
da681118410bbbcaf5224731f16571ec433c5719
50617 F20101124_AABMPX sutherin_h_Page_030.pro
39b8d0c0aea7d9f88165f58d5307cf58
9f52ec24c859c4676015c5fd2610cfc2a07cb97d
32833 F20101124_AABMRA sutherin_h_Page_112.pro
7ead077af8eb980e214aaae439857e74
20cd84573308f4a1ffd6c4946ea5fe40ca429384
29475 F20101124_AABMQM sutherin_h_Page_072.pro
a5c7bf031cada0dc7e5d78fdac610748
cca7956ee21aa03b2137aef69e885f330bda5fb3
46019 F20101124_AABMPY sutherin_h_Page_031.pro
f765f5e9fb8ec2fe0cdacb03cbd95a10
aee198943cf07c87c70d2cb23412268e16447fb0
132 F20101124_AABMRB sutherin_h_Page_003.txt
8c88b98b48cda23f180a4683e0c4ec21
5e7b16957e6742626c8ca37af3fa5dbc7d5a4494
51919 F20101124_AABMQN sutherin_h_Page_077.pro
ff2fd69164c1c1705a7e53e7c7a762fa
70949f8a5b163e09ea5e29e6fd29216020280143
41059 F20101124_AABMPZ sutherin_h_Page_039.pro
5419d7a2877ea5ef6d9ae046180cda57
d91d1b90f056758965309c78c442cb244ccb6793
1233 F20101124_AABMRC sutherin_h_Page_004.txt
37a0e6be8dfafa92be07c8af7e41b1c5
c3cebf02195490022a00807097d11f18f05ea2f3
50460 F20101124_AABMQO sutherin_h_Page_080.pro
d729da5075f74ef25925e75c656d32cf
75b2453296c6de8d091b20ce8013e25270c8899c
1785 F20101124_AABMRD sutherin_h_Page_010.txt
c587ebde6b2df2ea71a4fc12c8d57ca2
b3ad234a5c7a30f27cb285518041b1a465475a16
52283 F20101124_AABMQP sutherin_h_Page_082.pro
1a2177c62a39f5239e63a3bb72ef4b1c
2d72a555b2b54622a1f92edd6252e49fc251f472
1863 F20101124_AABMRE sutherin_h_Page_014.txt
0b09be42b100d06900b1202ec15e2cde
e1f03653a53e5ca019a9d99a084f15de0a1c5f20
47340 F20101124_AABMQQ sutherin_h_Page_085.pro
9c95080656a6eef2291fb5e743ba2166
727b79c289164c211f98aadda4b3705a8bf23a97
2046 F20101124_AABMRF sutherin_h_Page_015.txt
ace163c4109ab050f7dce9c271adad23
d8dfff96bb931239e4661f0370cdc4a56f7059bc
861 F20101124_AABMQR sutherin_h_Page_087.pro
6a6d41f2a0d407f9dd83eb3a4633c027
3979e5bbda86129e80b68ce54952f5d00269e84e
1998 F20101124_AABMRG sutherin_h_Page_016.txt
5354188ebead048cb27d4afb2c6ca8d1
51e8be7e564c11b754a1503254b7c61efa52098d
3236 F20101124_AABMQS sutherin_h_Page_092.pro
d2c5783a318a3d9def73ff755a791238
b2b010f6298d48d904d03b38e31ae2021b202e2a
2020 F20101124_AABMRH sutherin_h_Page_017.txt
bbd90ec96891db4f15d27034a665fb01
7b7fbf68f03fd39111285bae722c796947f33a11
14704 F20101124_AABMQT sutherin_h_Page_094.pro
f83d437392883d67707714976c29eb41
6effcb8c1c594477957763ef7be248b2ab89af5f
2131 F20101124_AABMRI sutherin_h_Page_021.txt
225c66f17527dd46c23e6ca4d397aed6
1ade3be2348d02ec2cc6c48ee967db3798aaf159
14215 F20101124_AABMQU sutherin_h_Page_096.pro
34df1a70347dbf30b2918a5c72cc6c12
fc70b22e232ab769186d89e9132db95d643011c9
F20101124_AABMRJ sutherin_h_Page_023.txt
c754c2eeec99e9bfa93e6d6ebc33f2a1
e45923b12c1aa2829ee01a936aa99ef0c4dd8f46
3346 F20101124_AABMQV sutherin_h_Page_104.pro
73a39837ea376bb8958d2f118fd1039d
8c51cfd30bbc3df29cddcfd06284e74c5c422d32
1989 F20101124_AABMRK sutherin_h_Page_026.txt
7a39b88af1718e9a977f7f3482ec6d20
a8d980ce8fdb255ebf81d90bef1f9348ea647022
54192 F20101124_AABMQW sutherin_h_Page_106.pro
791db7259ca13d30084b0f0ae204a009
c5a0c4ed56ce9e679b17c7bdd412f76c203340ca
639 F20101124_AABMRL sutherin_h_Page_034.txt
118c7fba90b43f1e9620c2f95a838796
87952af03221ceea622a953111705135a7594094
1493 F20101124_AABMQX sutherin_h_Page_107.pro
9030c8a13958006f561861955eae794d
950803c53bd1e50764abd332156306385b575756
610 F20101124_AABMSA sutherin_h_Page_093.txt
881fa5194c4b7668f70e3921b10db7d7
d8afab208013f16a29926b53d3e09551db251ca6
56182 F20101124_AABMQY sutherin_h_Page_109.pro
fdaf29eb7776b7fe51509a27ef3c62a6
6583697e8669678ee7dfbf56741c3709b8fba7f5
F20101124_AABMSB sutherin_h_Page_099.txt
25386d2d24d38109fc57a4658c7e5055
e3c9273fa0be0d686da9fb3ae0871daf126b3c7e
F20101124_AABMRM sutherin_h_Page_038.txt
504d3d08602135376d9cc35b879f0c1e
0f9a5e6ec9ac3e923a0e46abfc3897538f97e819
56111 F20101124_AABMQZ sutherin_h_Page_110.pro
3f7f94dcaefb001369342d21f96c745d
38699947a1f28011b481cb4cd677e85cfe786d16
F20101124_AABMSC sutherin_h_Page_100.txt
296d8367661433e15acbbbf1a2b85380
a47dd69ca317ceb3295614b1e6669558523c8955
1569 F20101124_AABMRN sutherin_h_Page_042.txt
28bf9669ad40ba42f7256ec84dd6615f
8adb1526d0b908e32ba34c3403f485f2c5e65c59
F20101124_AABMSD sutherin_h_Page_101.txt
835f49cbaf31e077cf4887c8cd231c10
f54515e6de47f2c03ae918dec18339f2bfe40906
1459 F20101124_AABMRO sutherin_h_Page_049.txt
24d7886d21350a0d0e7b9d7129e6ba7a
4a6be503c1551d0ff1a3d9e0bd3dac682f12ba96
118 F20101124_AABMSE sutherin_h_Page_107.txt
fd0d81d14871fa31ae40af42c6be3065
fbe020edecea5deb43dfa489d63a8cbc17711ea4
1631 F20101124_AABMRP sutherin_h_Page_050.txt
0ca225e6560a27769bfcd11da66c0e47
36f8663d8f91077edb91ae30f030eaf97567dd45
1376 F20101124_AABMSF sutherin_h_Page_111.txt
1e8ccbe3d3842ca21bd435179026a701
04d3ded0f91048f399d4e81d62c694d2f1005964
F20101124_AABMRQ sutherin_h_Page_059.txt
0bc230526c15b996cf556ed8f6ced12e
283b16d4a08f53233ecb3f36638e1b5a0c8d1137
1351 F20101124_AABMSG sutherin_h_Page_112.txt
90fe9cc792a9e8ca72f76e6af1c6c93e
922d14f9314df7174370bc5642055178c01f2cd2
2218 F20101124_AABMRR sutherin_h_Page_063.txt
fb5c5cd9a7d4384053f1876445cd2a69
0592aca11cfa1edbdeb5d46945a6d45b7e465c67
5711 F20101124_AABMSH sutherin_h_Page_006thm.jpg
6b727969d346136b520d7d4f9e53bce8
72021401c291b420949deef34767ae6ecd2b3928
2164 F20101124_AABMRS sutherin_h_Page_066.txt
c13c5a82e4f7f0038e6c97d90761d909
58d01b9888515751a4ec8dc97a3e6f82438c4f34
20869 F20101124_AABMSI sutherin_h_Page_073.QC.jpg
d1cd040107cd153e666259c162a1027e
f6728904ff89154bb048e72f89dc692aeacad6a8
698 F20101124_AABMRT sutherin_h_Page_068.txt
afdf7bc461aa7f5149bc20807ddd900c
693410f0df81d4b326c6813948d2ad684e313025
3527 F20101124_AABMSJ sutherin_h_Page_101thm.jpg
f0862fdea3d5ab7a90bb4d8063ec1ea3
d85f1db534238933b409f7122dbba147d55811d4
1865 F20101124_AABMRU sutherin_h_Page_071.txt
c4e22729d750f6887de26b7dc46b77f0
9d8ab7f4e9838e028a3ffad1432b598b98b67c45
6460 F20101124_AABMSK sutherin_h_Page_055thm.jpg
2b21c552261ebf1d0b80f970e02d69af
84823823aabc0355c5e5a093ea592155d0e23dd1
1177 F20101124_AABMRV sutherin_h_Page_072.txt
6a531755597c7497a9e3f28410b68176
35a61e22ad04e7f4ad76424aa1ba4a537ba3f375
20228 F20101124_AABMSL sutherin_h_Page_032.QC.jpg
4509028fc4d4b42acc59ebd751ba384b
39f7410674746e758b39daf9d0a14edf90d962d4
1909 F20101124_AABMRW sutherin_h_Page_073.txt
c8cdb30384f43894cb773e2e9920ec43
5375a169c12e1acd640b110b39a2c56e9eb01192
21205 F20101124_AABMTA sutherin_h_Page_071.QC.jpg
750469d1847a2d9da6a9bcc532e7967f
1c7846e60178ed70ef03d55803b050b3f3f4f594
23880 F20101124_AABMSM sutherin_h_Page_109.QC.jpg
c4dbcd9ce470e1b13c1c97304347bd4f
6626e8ab3997f49a0435c0c6b3a47e924848708d
1992 F20101124_AABMRX sutherin_h_Page_074.txt
f879bb037845b3d24d22ee251428bebb
5215d09f3a2399c8ab8038decac37859f94ee68d
2041 F20101124_AABMRY sutherin_h_Page_077.txt
68689986c6541723ccccba1e0b3942cf
de92c04fc7b57809b58022d2c386e34e0a117926
3539 F20101124_AABMTB sutherin_h_Page_100thm.jpg
991e27ffa0a816eb6c8d2e4afe6484da
d7d3f013481b2b37d57d0d6bb068860b90702694
6513 F20101124_AABMSN sutherin_h_Page_016thm.jpg
2e9baabef068226cc860432f2a952722
26ac3f15901d469ff9ba5b89c075fc7cab5fab95
77 F20101124_AABMRZ sutherin_h_Page_087.txt
8a9a0510f2079b668da483a082776c74
79ff25158cc452682e9ccbcf40fd48f5cbad1afc
10550 F20101124_AABMTC sutherin_h_Page_098.QC.jpg
3f667720f3b233058a4771fcb52a156a
f450857867a6c5d0660f53d6676857311cf5c2b8
5225 F20101124_AABMSO sutherin_h_Page_034thm.jpg
d6af0c3d0cdcbeeaad2665eb94b28464
7ffc5cc7bc1a2f76a49e28d06836e69403ec3cec
19949 F20101124_AABMTD sutherin_h_Page_018.QC.jpg
abafae75290ee2fc71337a26f70102bd
54b281d18a286c85a86d3fa3748b57de8205badb
6315 F20101124_AABMSP sutherin_h_Page_083thm.jpg
1087f6a2f60829021c7d90c47ff1466b
73a9a1be208b340867e1418973f098ecc6844eb4
23786 F20101124_AABMTE sutherin_h_Page_048.QC.jpg
f5c5984dbec4e956cd15853dc4c229a9
e00135a1e0b0e2935f74d3e298b8942ba660f410
23669 F20101124_AABMSQ sutherin_h_Page_024.QC.jpg
7d45df871bf821d862c99a8255e11f6d
0003e5f0e4c58255b8debb4c2908b78da5222626
23117 F20101124_AABMTF sutherin_h_Page_080.QC.jpg
db289c90f63023725df32c38c7cde228
02bfa202b2969dc74675115cb5a5cba3a6e9b484
23014 F20101124_AABMSR sutherin_h_Page_013.QC.jpg
0b7b18787e571b6638be05af40c1e15b
24f662f9508b9811418e2257e20379fd4a8091c3
22039 F20101124_AABMTG sutherin_h_Page_052.QC.jpg
0cd690a4b4882f915833eb09c1780258
30118ff235e19d3aa99344f745515c998de6b18c



PAGE 1

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF LIGHTING AND PREFERENCES FOR THE SETTING AND SOCIAL ARRA NGEMENTS IN CONTRASTING DINING FACILITIES By HOLLY SUTHERIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Holly Sutherin

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to Dad, Mom, Ross, and Phoebe.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my chair, Dr. M. Jo Hasell, and my committee member, Dr. Margaret Portillo, for their guidance and encouragement throughout this thesis project. I am very grateful for Dr. Hasells determination and support, as well as her great involvement in this thesis. My committees constant help, assistance and time devoted made this thesis possible. I would also like to thank Jill Rodriguez, Marketing Manager for Gator Dining Aramark, for her valuable time and aid in completing this research. Additionally, my gratitude goes out to the University of Florida staff and students from the dining facilities used in this study. Without their willingness and patience to complete my questionnaire, this study would not have been a success. I would also like to extend my appreciation to my friend, Miriam Garcia, who not only assisted in this research, but also provided her time and endless emotional support. Finally, I would like to thank my family most of all for their enduring support and encouragement of my aspirations in life. Without them I would not be the person that I am today. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................x CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of Purpose....................................................................................................2 Significance..................................................................................................................4 Research Design...........................................................................................................6 Assumptions.................................................................................................................7 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................8 History: Subjective Lighting Design Research.............................................................8 Lighting in College Dining Facilities.........................................................................10 Lighting.......................................................................................................................11 Perception...................................................................................................................12 Apparent Brightness...................................................................................................14 Subjective Research....................................................................................................16 Computer Graphics.....................................................................................................19 Summary.....................................................................................................................20 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................21 Research Setting.........................................................................................................21 Participants.................................................................................................................27 Year of Birth........................................................................................................28 Gender.................................................................................................................28 Weekly Visits......................................................................................................28 Meal Plans...........................................................................................................28 Expected Cost per Meal.......................................................................................29 Length of Time Spent per Visit...........................................................................29 v

PAGE 6

Activities..............................................................................................................29 Procedures and Instruments........................................................................................30 Physical Data Collection in the Setting......................................................................32 Data Collection Prior to the Formal Study..........................................................32 Data Collection during the Formal Study............................................................35 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................38 4 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................39 Students Perception of Lighting Level Variations....................................................39 Students Positive and Negative Responses toward their Dining Facility.................51 Residential Dining Facility..................................................................................51 Fast Food Dining Facility....................................................................................54 Students Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social Arrangements.................58 Summary.....................................................................................................................60 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................62 Interpretations of Students Perceptions of Variations in Light Levels.....................64 Interpretations of Students Positive and Negative Reactions toward their Dining Facility...................................................................................................................65 Interpretations of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social Arrangements.........................................................................................................67 Limitations..................................................................................................................68 Suggestions for Further Research...............................................................................68 Suggestions for Architects, Designers, Facility Planners, and College Dining Management...........................................................................................................70 Lighting...............................................................................................................71 Design..................................................................................................................72 Food.....................................................................................................................73 Conclusion..................................................................................................................74 APPENDIX A RESIDENTIAL DINING FACILITY........................................................................75 B FAST FOOD DINING FACILITY............................................................................80 C QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................85 D INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT FORM.................95 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................97 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................101 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Features of Residential and Fast Food Dining Facilities..........................................22 4-1 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Actual Space........................................................................................................................40 4-2 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Bright Image........................................................................................................................41 4-3 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Bright Image........................................................................................................................42 4-4 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Dim Image....43 4-5 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Dim Image........................................................................................................................47 4-6 MANOVA of Students Perception of their Space..................................................48 4-7 MANOVA of Dining Facilities Affect on Students Perception of their Space....49 4-8 MANOVA of Lightings Levels Affect on Students Perception of their Space.....50 4-9 MANOVA of Interaction of Dining Facilities and Lightings Affect on Students Perception of their Space.........................................................................50 4-10 Open-Ended Responses from the Residential Dining Facility Students..................52 4-11 Open-Ended Responses from the Fast Food Dining Facility Students....................55 4-12 Cross Tabulation of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social Interactions...............................................................................................................59 4-13 MANOVA of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social Interactions...............................................................................................................60 4-14 Re-Coded MANOVA of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social Interactions....................................................................................................60 A-1 Residential Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule.................................................77 vii

PAGE 8

A-2 Residential Dining Facility Furniture Schedule.......................................................78 B-1 Fast Food Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule...................................................82 B-2 Fast Food Dining Facility Furniture Schedule.........................................................83 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Floor Plan of Residential Dining Facility................................................................23 3-2 Lighting Plan of Residential Dining Facility...........................................................24 3-3 Floor Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility...................................................................25 3-4 Lighting Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility.............................................................26 3-5 Diagram of Research Design Using a Semantic Differential Scale.........................36 4-1 Actual Image (Top) Compared to Dim Image (Bottom) of the Residential Dining Facility..........................................................................................................45 4-2 Actual Image (Top) Compared to Dim Image (Bottom) of the Fast Food Dining Facility..........................................................................................................46 4-3 Pie Charts of Frequency of Responses for the Residential (Top) and Fast Food (Bottom) Dining Facilities.......................................................................................57 A-1 Residential Dining Very Dim................................................................................75 A-2 Residential Dining Dim..........................................................................................75 A-3 Residential Dining Bright......................................................................................76 A-4 Residential Dining Very Bright.............................................................................76 A-5 Residential Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy..........................79 B-1 Fast Food Dining Very Dim..................................................................................80 B-2 Fast Food Dining Dim............................................................................................80 B-3 Fast Food Dining Bright.........................................................................................81 B-4 Fast Food Dining Very Bright................................................................................81 B-5 Fast Food Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy............................84 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design UNIVERSITY STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF LIGHTING AND PREFERENCES FOR THE SETTING AND SOCIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN CONTRASTING DINING FACILITIES By Holly Sutherin August, 2005 Chair: Dr. Mary Jo Hasell Major Department: Interior Design This exploratory study conducted within a holistic setting, investigated university students perceptions of lighting, preferences for the setting, and preferences for the social arrangements in contrasting University of Florida dining facilities. Notable lighting researcher John Flynn focused on the psychological effects of lighting, and believed that there are shared impressions among users of a space, as well as shared changes in impression as the lighting level in the space is varied. Flynn also developed three categories of impressions upon which users define their space: 1) evaluative, or emotional, 2) perceptual clarity, or functional, and 3) spaciousness, or spatial design. In the current study, these three categories of impressions were used for the students to evaluate their perception of lighting in their space as well as variations in lighting levels as depicted in four computer-enhanced photographs. One dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because of its design, lighting, and food selection, labeled as a residential restaurant. The x

PAGE 11

other dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because of its contrasting date of construction, lighting, design, and fast-food style selection. A questionnaire was distributed to one group of 50 willing participants from each dining facility after sunset because daylight and sunlight were not a factor in this research. The questionnaire included a semantic differential scale to test the students perception of lighting levels, two open-ended questions for the students to respond to on both the positive and negative aspects of their dining facility, and a Likert scale to measure the students preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. It was determined that the students perceptions of lighting levels in their dining facility did have an affect on how they perceived their space. The participants from the Residential Dining facility had more consistent positive and negative responses than the students from the Fast Food dining facility. Additionally, the interaction of the dining facility and the lighting significantly influenced how students perceived the five adjectives dislike/like, unpleasant/pleasant, hazy/clear, blurry/focused, and confining/spacious. The two open-ended questions revealed that the Residential Dining facility received a majority of positive responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility received a majority of negative responses. Lastly, no connection was found between the students preferences for dining in social arrangements; however, it was determined that neither setting was perceived as appropriate for a romantic dinner. Therefore, designers and architects should be aware that lighting systems influence students perceptions of the space in terms of its emotional, functional, and spatial qualities. Also, students paid attention to the design, the lighting, and the space, and clearly expressed opinions about how well it suited their needs. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION "Sharing food with another human being is an intimate act that should not be indulged in lightly."M F K Fisher In the 1950s, US public university dining facilities were the culinary equivalent of the industrial line (Muecke, 2004, p.236) where students ate tasteless cafeteria food at tables with bench seating lit by harsh fluorescent lighting. By the mid 1990s, fast-food franchises replaced most cafeterias but still required students to wait in long lines to eat bland food prepared hours earlier in uninspiring interior settings (Kumar, 2003). By the turn of the 21 st Century, the campus food service industry was a $9.5 billion dollar business (Kumar, 2003) and the residential restaurant was at the center of the latest innovation in campus dining. Residential restaurants are an attempt to create a modern and comfortable physical setting as well as enhanced fresh food choices to incoming students, faculty members, administrators, and guests to the campus. In spite of this trend and others, Horwitz and Singley (2005) argue that little is known about the perceptions and preferences of students who dine in these campus facilities. As college campus planners begin to move away from the standard delivery of food and to design alternative facilities, new efforts are required to explore students perceptions and preferences for campus dining experiences. This study aims to provide information to interior designers, architects, university decision makers, and facility planners about students perceptions of lighting levels, preferences for dining settings, 1

PAGE 13

2 and preferences for types of social arrangements within contrasting campus dining facilities. While research has been completed on the perceptions of lighting in many settings, this researcher found no information on how lighting levels are perceived by students in college dining environments. Most studies that test the subjective aspects of lighting focus on such spaces as offices, hospitals, and even manufactured lighting laboratories (Butler & Biner, 1987; Flynn & Subisak, 1978; Moore et. al., 2003; Ornstein, 1992). These studies have found that peoples moods, emotions, productivity, and alertness are influenced by the lighting in their space. Additionally, numerous articles have been written on newly renovated and newly constructed college dining facilities across the nation (Harlow, 2004; Koschmann & Wesp, 2001; Kumar, 2003; Lee, 2005; Mattus, 2004; Tejera, 2004, and Yonan, 2004). However, these normative articles focus on new trends in college dining facilities, and lack any empirical research on students subjective responses to lighting. For the purpose of this study, the term subjective is defined as something particular to an individual, or a reality that is perceived rather than factual knowledge (www.m-w.com). To rectify the existing gap in knowledge, the current study focuses on college dining facilities because a critical empirical analysis is required to provide guidelines for designers and architects seeking to create a healthy and successful campus dining facility. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate within a natural holistic setting, college students perceptions of lighting levels, environmental preferences for dining, and preferences for dining in different social arrangements in two contrasting University of Florida campus dining facilities. Two separate groups of students, one

PAGE 14

3 from a fast food dining facility and the other from a residential dining facility were solicited to take part in this study. Three research questions were formulated as the focus of this study and are listed as follows: 1. Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facilitylit with a combination of functional and subjective lightingexpress a more positive perception for lighting in this setting than those students who dine in the Fast Food Dining facilitylit predominantly with functional lighting? 2. Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facilitywith an open kitchen and enhanced food choicesexpress a higher preference score for their overall dining experience than students in the Fast Food Dining facilitywith a closed kitchen and limited food choices? 3. Do students in these two contrasting dining facilities differ significantly in their preferences for dining with a friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone? Multiple methods were used to conduct this research and included a survey instrument with both closed and open-ended questions. A closed-ended semantic differential scale was used to understand the students perceptions of the lighting in their space, as well as computer-enhanced photographs of each facility with four variations in lighting levels. Students perceptions were measured in response to the four photographs of both the Fast Food Dining facility containing predominantly fast food franchises, and the Residential Dining facility that utilizes the trend of residential dining. Two open-ended questions collected students positive and negative reactions towards these dining spaces, as well as open-ended responses about their preferences. Finally, a closed-ended

PAGE 15

4 Likert scale assessed the students preferences for the type of social arrangement they preferred in the dining facility. The choices included dining with a friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, and alone within each dining facility. Significance Dining Halls are being constructed nationwide to meet the heightened culinary expectations and social experiences of college students today. Bill Kolb, the Admissions Director at the University of Florida says, Its all about wooing the student, with high academic scores and scholarships (Kumar, 2003 p.3). John Barnhill, the Admissions Director at Florida State University adds, Anything can be the triggeryou never want to overlook anything that can make the school more attractive (p.3). New residential restaurants on campus attempt to provide one of these triggers. They offer many advantages such as food being made to order in front of the student, all-you-can-eat buffets, and a wide selection of quality food. Kumar adds that with these trends developing, the university designers and planners also realize that other factors, such as lighting, finishes, colors, and convenience need to be addressed in order to provide a complete, successful dining environment. For example, Kumar notes that booths are installed and wall murals are painted in these new residential dining facilities, out-dated fluorescent lighting fixtures are being removed and replaced with a mix of modern fixtures or even streetlights. The customary use of specific types of lighting can reveal to users what type of restaurant they are eating in (Wright, 1985). Wright states that college dining facilities can be classified as fast-food, or cafeteria, where design goals are to keep people moving and discourage lingering. A quick turnover, or the amount of business done in a cycle, is important when designing a college dining facility to afford for optimal

PAGE 16

5 business. Light can have an effect on a restaurants turnover. Wright adds that cool, bright fluorescent lighting systems have been found to decrease patrons stay in a restaurant and are utilized in order to promote high turnover. By contrast, warm, dim lighting, as often seen in high-end restaurants, increases a patrons stay and thus decreases turnover. The current research builds on this foundation to test students perceptions and four variations in lighting levels in two campus dining facilities with different interior design, food service, and lighting installations. The Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility use both subjective and functional lighting systems, however, the installations in fixtures used in both facilities contrast one another. Subjective lighting involves a symbolic, compositional design element that goes beyond the recommended lighting codes and standards (Tiller & Veitch, 1995). Subjective lighting is also significant in how users perceive their lit environment. Gifford (1988) found that people seated in well-lit areas perceived their environment more positively than participants seated where there is inadequate or un-interesting lighting. Jay (2002) explains two types of lighting; functional and subjective. Subjective lighting can be found in such environments as churches, hotel foyers, high-class retail, restaurants, clubs, and so on, to achieve an intimate setting, while the main purpose of functional lighting is ease of seeing, as in office spaces. In the current study, both the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility have a combination of subjective and functional lighting systems. However, the Residential Dining facility uses modern updated lighting installations, wall sconces, and track lighting, while the Fast Food Dining facility primarily uses functional lighting, soffits lighting, and minimal track

PAGE 17

6 lighting. For the purpose of this study, the names of both dining facilities have been changed. Jay (2002) identified four main differences between functional and subjective lighting installations. First, uniform lighting that is used to light a whole space is termed functional while subjective installations rarely use uniform lighting. Rather, they use beams of concentrated light on particular areas of interest, such as the top of a dining table or on a piece of artwork. Second, functional lighting has plain and simple fixtures that do not attract attention or attempt to create a focal point, while subjective lighting installations are ornamental, made of expensive materials, and contribute to the mood and ambience of the room. Third, functional lighting is installed at specific points for uniform illumination; while subjective lighting is directed at significant places so the eye is led easily from one area to another without any breaks, such as from entrance to table to table to bar. Finally, functional lighting is required to illuminate a space for a specific task, while subjective installations are typically arranged in settings of low reflectance and therefore only require a small proportion of the space to be illuminated well enough for accurate perception. Subjective lighting will be discussed further in chapter two. Research Design The independent variables for the current study included the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility, as well as the students demographics (age, gender, frequency of visits per week, whether or not the subject was on a meal plan, cost for one meal, length on time spent per visit, and what activities were completed). The dependent variables were 1) the students perception of lighting as recorded by a semantic differential seven bi-polar adjective list, applied to the five different lighting

PAGE 18

7 levels measured (including the space itself), 2) the open-ended responses, and 3) the students preferences for the type of social arrangements in the setting with a friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone. Assumptions Several assumptions underlie this study. First, the researcher assumes that all students recruited were a representative sample of University of Florida students who regularly attend or have attended the dining facilities. Second, any student can purchase a meal plan system to use in either dining facility. Thus, the meals per week is limiting because the Fast Food Dining facility is not included in this plan. Third, it is assumed that all lighting levels measured with a light meter were accurate and free of mechanical error. Fourth, it is assumed that the light levels measured initially remain at a consistent footcandle. The delimitations set in this research are few. The restaurant selection was delimited to two dining halls with contrasting designs, lighting, and food selections located on the main campus at the University of Florida located in Gainesville, Florida. Also, this study was delimited to a public land-grant institution. Additionally, the time period in which the questionnaires were distributed was delimited to after sunset. Thus, sunlight and daylight were not a factor in this research. Lastly, the researcher notes that the size of the Fast Food Dining facility (18,683 sq. ft.) was two and a half times larger than the size of the Residential Dining facility (7,481 sq. ft.).

PAGE 19

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE History: Subjective Lighting Design Research The current study focused primarily on students perceptions of lighting levels in two contrasting dining facilities. In the 1960s and 1970s researchers in lighting design (Boyce, 1973; Gibson, 1979; Jay, 1967; Marsden, 1969) such as John Flynn (1973, 1977, 1978, 1979) sought to understand the effects of lighting and how it influences peoples feelings and perceptions of an interior space. According Murdoch and Caughey (2004), Flynn was a twentieth century lighting pioneer and researcher who focused on the psychological effects of lighting. Flynn hypothesized that there are consistent and shared patterns of impressions among users of a space, as well as consistent changes in impression as the lighting in the space is varied. He proposed that there is more to perception than physiological processes, . . visual consciousness does not seem to be completely explainable with the simple notion of an optical image imposed on the retina of the eye and photographically interpreted by the brain . instead, we find indications that there is considerable selectivity in the process of visual experience (87). Through experimentation, Flynn recorded the subjective perceptions of users in terms of both the lighting arrangement and illumination levels. In the 1970s, the concept of providing a satisfying illuminance level, a pleasant atmosphere, and clear visual cues were reasonably new and untested. Because his work was completed nearly 40 years ago, there have been several empirical follow-up studies that use Flynns methods of analysis as a guide for measuring subjective reactions to lighting (Bernecker & Mier, 8

PAGE 20

9 1985; Biner & Butler, 1989; Boyce, 1973; Houser & Tiller, 2003; Jay, 2002; Ozturk, 2003; Tiller & Veitch, 1995). While these criteria are evident and relevant today, progress was made in the field of subjective lighting and how it influences peoples perceptions and feelings due to Flynn and his followers dedication to providing updated research in the field of lighting. Students perceptions of lighting levels concerning the three main categories of impressions that Flynn (1973) defined and isolated were: evaluative impressions, perceptual clarity, and spaciousness. Evaluative Impressions (EI) describe the emotional aspects that people use to judge a space. Designers can reinforce how people emotionally judge their space by incorporating low-level overhead diffuse and down-lighting as well as peripheral wall lighting. EI can also be defined by bi-polar adjectives such as pleasant/unpleasant, dislike/like, and visually cool/visually warm. Perceptual Clarity (PC) are functional ways in which people evaluate a space. Designers can strengthen these evaluations by featuring horizontal luminance from high intensity overhead diffuse lighting, as well as a combination of overhead down-lighting, diffused lighting, and peripheral lighting. Bi-polar adjectives that describe PC include clear/hazy, bright/dim, and focused/unfocused. Lastly, spaciousness (S) is used to evaluate a space on its spatial interior architecture. Designers can emphasize spaciousness with peripheral lighting as well as a combination of overhead down-lighting, diffused lighting, and peripheral lighting. Bi-polar adjectives that describe S are spacious/cramped. These categories of impressions were used in the current study to understand how students perceived emotionally, functionally, and spatially, the lighting in their setting based upon the seven bi-polar adjectives developed by Flynn. Additionally, the researcher wanted to

PAGE 21

10 determine if these categories were relevant in lighting research as accurate measures on which to judge lighting in contextual settings, as opposed to the a-contextual laboratory settings in which Flynn conducted his research. Lighting in College Dining Facilities Lighting fixtures and placement help to create the ambience in active and profitable restaurants. The following information provides empirical research that contributes to the importance of lighting in dining facilities. Mahnke and Mahnke (1987) observed that in order to provide good lighting to all customers, the space should not be too dim or too bright. They add that while bright lights create arousing, stimulating environments, dim lights create cozy, intimate surroundings. It is also essential to establish a sense of personal space for patrons. Personal space comes from the placement of tables, as well as the lighting over a tables surface to illuminate, but not exceed the social boundary of the patron. In high-end dining, bright overhead lighting can damage the feeling of personal space, however it may be necessary in large spaces for encouraging social interaction, such as in cafeterias and college dining facilities. Also, to promote privacy, Mahnke and Mahnke (1987) add that in cafeterias and college dining facilities, the serving line should be located away from the seating area so there is a physical separation between serving and dining. Birren (1988) notes, in the food service industry, warm light is essentially imperative. Warm, soft lighting has many functions, such as providing a pleasant complexion to customers, creating a comfortable atmosphere, and enhancing the feeling of physical warmth, thus promoting relaxation. Birren adds that successful restaurants have been using bright floodlights during the noon hour rush, and a soft diffused light to add warmth for evening diners. Bright fluorescent lights on one hand attract customers into the establishment, and then out in a hurry; while incandescent soft

PAGE 22

11 lighting creates a homelike atmosphere and invites relaxation, and thus encourages spending from the patron. Lighting Light and the perception of light is not only a biological phenomenon, it also relies heavily on the psychological. The amount of light an object reflects is said to be its luminosity, while illuminance is the amount of light directed on an object or surface (Gibson, 1979). Most objects are non-luminous; that is they do not give off light, and they are only seen by the light of luminous objects, such as the sun or fire. However, Jay (1967) notes that the luminance of a surface does not alone indicate how bright the surface will appear to the eye. Ozturk (2003) emphasized that in order to achieve a preferred luminance, three variables must be taken into consideration: the number of luminaires, the luminous intensity distribution, and the placement of the luminaires. All three variables are important to the current study because students were surveyed sitting at dining tables, as well as the number, intensity, and placement of the luminaires. Therefore, the luminous intensity of the tabletops was measured with a lightmeter in both dining locations to determine differences in actual brightness. Additionally, lighting plans of both facilities were constructed to account for the number and placement of luminaires. Refer to Figures 3-2, and 3-4 for annotated lighting plans of both dining facilities. Light can affect physiological functioning, as well as mood, energy, and behavior (Heerwagen & Heerwagen, 1986). Baron and Rea (1991) observe that peoples moods influence how they think as well as their behaviorlighting conditions influence moodand thus, lighting conditions, by changing peoples moods, can influence many aspects of their behavior and how they think. To test this further, Baron and Rea conducted an

PAGE 23

12 empirical study where participants performed a wide range of tasks under one of several different lighting conditions. The results indicated that lighting conditions do influence participants performance on all tasks completed. Additionally, research participants rated low, warm illumination as more similar to lighting in homes and restaurants than high, cool illumination as more similar to that in offices and hospitals. Thus, participants were associating different lighting conditions with different locations or types of settings, and most people would describe activities in homes and restaurants as more pleasant and relaxed than those in offices or hospitals. However, Baron and Rea did not conduct this research in a natural setting, and thus, the participants had to imagine themselves in all given settings. Through this research, it is confirmed as Flynn (1973) suggested that lighting conditions do much more than provide necessary levels of illumination for task performance. Conclusively, it is important to design an aesthetic as well as functional lighting system that affords for both the physical and psychological needs of a user. Perception Perception involves the pre-knowledge of things, it is individual, and there is no way to know exactly how one person sees the same space as another person (Shapter, 1999). The human visual system is a pattern seeker of enormous power and subtlety, says Few (2004), who studied how perception influences the way we process information and make decisions (p. 33). Gibson (1979) makes a distinction that direct perception is also a process of picking up information from the ambient array of light as opposed to the physiological process of receiving information from the optical nerves (p.147). Flynn (1973) believed that users define space through a perceptual process of scanning the space, activity, and tasks for patterns of information.

PAGE 24

13 Visual perception is a continual process of receiving information about the physical environment that is used to make conscious and subconscious judgments (Robson, 1999). Robson empirically studied ambient factors and psychological principles in relation to a quick turnover rate of customers in restaurants. One of the psychological factors she studied is perception. Perception is a continual process of taking in information and interpreting the environment to make conscious or subconscious decisions. This process of perception includes taking in stimuli and sifting through it to retrieve the most important information. Without this process of sifting, our brains would be overloaded and not capable of focusing on anything else. Robson defines three distinct modes of perception people shift between: (a) operational, or concentrating on elements that assist in accomplishing a task, (b) responsive, or noticing things in the environment, and (c) inferential, or focusing on things that support knowledge of an environment. From these three modes of perception the most successful environments are determined that provide information on all three levels. The brain continuously scans the surrounding environment, taking perceptual inventory for familiar cues that help determine which action is most appropriate (Robson, 1999, p.2). For example, an activity, such as ordering food, or a concept such as fine dining, all relate strongly to something humans understand clearly. Conclusively, environments that people can scan quickly and comprehend easily are the ones in which people perform most successfully and efficiently. However, as exposure to stimuli increases, the brain becomes uninterested and perception decreases. Conversely, an overwhelming exposure to a certain stimuli may cause confusing or conflicting messages in the brain, thereby leading to sensory overload. These concepts should be

PAGE 25

14 understood when designing a space to provide enough stimulation to attract and stimulate users to stay in an area, while providing a pleasant environment. The current study tests these ideas because one dining setting consists of stimulating designs, lighting fixtures, and even food choices, while the other dining setting does not contain many stimulating, or arousing features. Therefore, this concept can be used to make inferences from the data on how students perceive the lighting in their dining facility. Apparent Brightness One basic perceptual process, apparent brightness, has been the focus of much research (Bernecker & Mier, 1985; Fotios, 2001; Flynn, 1973; Jay, 1967; Marsden, 1969; Tiller & Veitch, 1995). Apparent brightness involves both the function of luminance and the adaptation process through which users perceive the physical environment (Jay, 1967). Through his research in subjective lighting, Flynn consistently and repeatedly concluded that apparent brightness was determined by the perceived intensity of light on the horizontal plane (Tiller & Veitch, 1995). Current studies also reveal that apparent brightness can also be influenced by light source color, lamp color, and luminances of vertical surfaces, or a bright element in a luminaire. However, Tiller and Veitch conclude that the distribution and intensity of light has a more significant effect on perceived brightness than any other factors. To test this, Tiller and Veitch (1995) conducted an empirical experiment, where users had to adjust the brightness of one space until it matched the brightness of another space. Two of the rooms utilized ambient uniform lighting, while two other rooms used a less uniform lighting distribution. The results showed that in the control comparison, the research participants matched the brightness of the two rooms consistently; however, research participants became less accurate as the overall brightness was increased. In the

PAGE 26

15 experimental comparisons, research participants were also consistent in matching the two rooms; and it was found that the non-uniform luminance distribution appeared brighter than the ambient uniform luminance distribution. Thus, rooms with non-uniform luminance distribution appeared brighter to research participants than rooms with uniform luminance distribution. Conclusively, between five and ten percent less illuminance is required to achieve the same perception of brightness in a non-uniform luminance distribution room as opposed to a uniform luminance distributed room. Restaurants, hotels, bars, or clubs, commonly use subjective (non-uniform) lighting distributions, and these spaces are thus more likely to appear brighter than a functional (uniformly) lit room. Tiller and Veitchs study is important to the current research because one university dining space under study operates on primarily functional, uniform lighting distributions, while the other university dining space uses a combination of functional and subjective, non-uniform lighting distributions. However, Tiller and Veitchs study was conducted in an a-contextual experimental setting, while this study was conducted in a contextual natural setting of college dining facilities. Therefore, students did not have to imagine their surroundings when completing the survey and generalized guidelines could be developed that are beneficial to designers seeking to create a successful dining facility. Biner and Butler (1989) hypothesized that lighting levels and social arrangements both affect arousal. Arousal is defined in this context as a measure of how an environment stimulates our perceptions (Robson, 1999). In Biner and Butlers empirical study, when individuals maintain an optimal arousal level, then preferred lighting levels for particular settings vary based on levels of social arrangements. Using a survey

PAGE 27

16 approach, a list of common behaviors as well as where these behaviors occur; such as eating occurs in a kitchen, was compiled. Next, the behaviors were cross tabulated with three types of social arrangements: (1) performing the behavior in the setting with a platonic friend, (2) performing the behavior with a romantic partner present, and (3) performing the behavior with a group of friends. In the questionnaire each subject responded on a scale from A (very bright) to D (very dark) for each behavior within each social setting. Once again, the participants had to imagine themselves doing a particular behavior, in a particular setting, under four different lighting conditions. Thus, having to create all of these situations in ones mind may be difficult and unreliable. Biner and Butler determined that brightness preferences were lower with romantic partners than with a platonic friend or with a group of platonic friends. In addition, brightness preferences between one friend and a group of friends depended on the specific activity. As a result, the people you dine with can have as much of an effect on your dining experience as the lighting systems alone. Therefore, the current study relates to this information because students preferences for dining in different social arrangements were evaluated. Additionally, unlike Biner and Butlers study, this study was conducted in the holistic setting of university dining facilities and thus the students did not have to imagine dining in social situations. However, preferences for dining in different social arrangements could only be tested with the existing lighting level in the dining setting. Students were not asked to answer this question in relationship to each of the photographs with varying lighting levels. Subjective Research The human visual system, what a user sees, is for the most part subjective entirely within the mind. Thus, what a person sees is not precisely measurable. Semantic

PAGE 28

17 differential scales are one of the most common methods used in collecting subjective responses to lighting; and scales have been used as complementary techniques with other data collection tools in the past (Houser & Tiller, 2003). In the 1950s, Osgood developed the semantic differential scale as a tool for measuring word and concept meanings; and in the 1970s Flynn was credited with applying the scale in his research on the subjective aspects of lighting (Tiller, 1990). The purpose of the semantic differential scale is to asses the meanings of two bi-polar adjectives at the ends of a seven-step scale. It is important to note that the scale yields quantitative data which reinforce verifiability because other researchers should be able to apply the same set of scales to equal research participants and obtain essentially similar results (Osgood, 1952). Osgoods scale is useful for determining subjective meanings of words. Comfort, beautiful, and brightness have various significance and different implications to people and the semantic differential scale can be used to quantify these differences and gauge statistical significance. In this study, semantic differential scales were used to determine the students perceptions of four variations in lighting levels in their dining facility. One finding in current lighting research notes that the semantic scales are limited unless they are used in a consistent fashion. Tiller and Rea (1991) recommend that lighting be clearly identified as the stimulus to be judged. Tiller states, . . without an explicit definition of lighting as the stimulus, there is no guarantee that different research participants are evaluating the same stimulus, or even that the stimulus being evaluated remains consistent for individual research participants over time (p.61). A second limitation provided by Tiller and Rea is that the bi-polar adjectives are not clearly defined

PAGE 29

18 and are not related to the aspect of the environment under study. For example, if lighting is the stimulus to be judged, the adjectives friendly/hostile would not fit in any category because friendly/hostile does not describe lighting conditions. Bi-polar adjectives must be carefully selected that relate to salient and scalable aspects of the lighting environment. In the current study, the bi-polar adjectives fit into one of three categories of impression determined by Flynn: evaluative, perceptual clarity, and spaciousness. Flynn initially discovered these adjectives using a factor analysis to determine the most valid dimensions for judging the subjective levels of lighting. A factor analysis in the current study was not used to determine any adjectives due to the reliability of Flynns research. The semantic scale was judged on five points (very, quite, neither/nor, quite, very), where the two extremes were located at opposite ends. In addition, each adjective was randomized from positive to negative, or negative to positive. The students setting as well as four computer enhanced images depicting variations in lighting levels was judged on each adjective. In addition, Houser and Tiller (2003) advise that semantic differential scaling should always be used in conjunction with a second or third method of data collection; such converging operations assure a high degree of validity. Also, in order to avoid a sequencing effect of responses by the research participants, the order of the bi-polar adjectives should be randomized for each question. Triangulation was used for the data collection, and the bi-polar adjectives were randomized to prevent participants from hastily answering the questions. Additionally, this study was conducted in a natural setting of two contrasting college dining facilities, one, a common fast food space, and two, a residential dining space. One advantage of conducting this research in a natural

PAGE 30

19 setting was that the researcher could provide a questionnaire to the students within the dining setting; thus the students did not have to imagine their surroundings. Unlike Flynns a-contextual laboratory research, the current study was conducted in a contextual setting, thus adding validity to the findings. Furthermore, there was minimal risk to the students because they were in a comfortable, familiar atmosphere, and the observations were not obtrusive or of a sensitive nature. Computer Graphics The use of computers as both a calculating and graphical tool in representing spaces as well as lighting is constantly improving. Robert Davis (1986) argues with new technologies in three-dimensional graphics, it is now possible to produce a shaded rendering of a space in a perspective view, giving a photograph-like image of a proposed lighting environment (p.38). Furthermore, Davis and Bernecker (1984), found that computer generated images are accurate representations of what an environment actually looks like to the human eye. However, even without the use of computer-generated images photographs continue to be a successful research tool in portraying a space to a research participant. Stamps (1990) emphasizes that subjects responses to color photographs and slides are similar to responses obtained from perceivers located at the actual site where the photograph was taken. Also, Sheppard (1989) and Smardon et al., (1986) have proposed that a visual simulation must be easy to understand, credible, accurate, unbiased, and representative. In the current study, computer graphics are used as a tool to enhance the visual representation of the dining spaces being studied. Color digital photographs were taken of each dining space and the light levels were adjusted through the use of Adobe Photoshop. The photographs were randomized in a booklet for the research participants

PAGE 31

20 to use to complete the semantic differential scales. In addition, the research participants were located in a natural setting, their dining facility, while looking at the photographs of that facility and completing the questionnaire. Summary John Flynn, notable lighting researcher, focused on the psychological effects of lighting. He hypothesized that there are consistent and shared patterns of impressions among users of a space, as well as consistent changes in impression as the lighting in the space is varied. Through his research he developed three categories of impressions that people use in their perception of a space. Evaluative impressions are how people perceive their environment based on emotions. Perceptual clarity impressions involve the functional ways in which people perceive their space, and spaciousness impressions help people to perceive their space in terms of its interior architecture. The current study builds upon Flynns research in testing university students perceptions of lighting levels in their space as well as four variations in lighting levels as depicted in computer enhanced photographs. Biner and Butler (1989) hypothesized that lighting levels and social arrangements both affect arousal. Arousal is defined in this context as a measure of how an environment stimulates our perceptions (Robson 1999). When individuals maintain an optimal arousal level, then preferred lighting levels for particular settings should vary in different social arrangements. The current study utilizes Biner and Butlers concept of social arrangements, and tests students preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements with a friend, romantic partner, group of friends, and alone.

PAGE 32

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This exploratory, holistic study investigated college students perceptions of lighting in two contrasting on-campus University of Florida dining facilities: the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility. The students perceptions of lighting levels were measured through the use of semantic differential rating scales. In addition, two open-ended questions about the students positive and negative reactions toward their dining facility were included. The students preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements were measured through the use of a Likert Scale. This survey approach aimed to explore associations between variables, rather than causal connections. As Marsden (1997) notes, a survey approach is especially useful for descriptive studies dealing with unobservable things, such as peoples thoughts, attitudes, preferences, and feelings. This approach was appropriate for my study and contributed to understanding how students perceived their given evening lighting atmosphere, how students reacted to their dining facility, and with whom students preferred to dine. Appendix A includes the four photographs used in the survey, a room finish schedule, a furniture schedule, and a diagram of the observed frequency of occupied tables for the Residential Dining facility. Appendix B includes the same information for the Fast Food Dining facility. Research Setting A two stage process was used to select from a variety of University of Florida campus dining facilities. First, all University of Florida dining facilities were taken into 21

PAGE 33

22 consideration by the researcher. Second, the researcher selected two on-campus dining facilities where the lighting levels and dining options were contrasting. Table 3-1 summarizes the two dining facilities used and some of their contrasting features. Table 3-1 Features of Residential and Fast Food Dining Facilities. Dining Date of Facility Construction Lighting Design Food Residential 2001 Subjective/Functional Circular Home-cooked Fast Food 1967 Functional Orthogonal Fast Food The Residential Dining facility was designed and constructed in 2001. See Appendix A for room-finish and furniture schedules. University planners labeled it a residential dining center because it includes upscale, authentic foods from around the world, including a Mediterranean Kitchen, American Bistro, Gator Grille, Latin Flavors, Vegan Corner and more (www.bsd.ufl.edu/dining). As seen in Figure 3-1, the floor plan of this facility, an open circular kitchen is used, allowing students to see their food being made, as well as affording for short lines with little waiting time. Another type of food service being utilized in this facility is the food station. These are specific areas in a large dining hall where different types of food are made, such as a pizza station, a grill station, and a vegetarian station. The station concept is useful in achieving several goals. First, students do not have to stand in one long, slow-moving line, rather they can move from station to station to select just the food they want (Mattus, 2004). Second, there is more opportunity to be creative in menu selection and cooking to order. This assures that there will be something for everyone. Multiple stations break up the length of time students

PAGE 34

23 have to wait for their food and it spreads high traffic areas around so no one line is too long. Figure 3-1 Floor Plan of Residential Dining Facility Note. All tables shown were used in this study; tables that were not used are not shown here. Lastly, Figure 3-2 shows an annotated lighting plan of the Residential Dining facility. It features functional and subjective lighting fixtures as color-coded by the legend the track lighting is colored blue, the biax/fluorescents are colored green, and the wall sconces are colored red. In the Residential Dining facility the subjective lighting

PAGE 35

24 consists of wall sconces and track lighting, which highlights the different food stations. The functional lighting is the biax/compact fluorescent lamps. Figure 3-2 Lighting Plan of Residential Dining Facility Note. Subjective lighting used is track lighting and wall sconces. Functional lighting used is biax/compact fluorescents. The building that houses the Fast Food Dining facility was designed and constructed in 1967, and has been through numerous renovations since then. The food court area has always served fast food, but the current vendors were added in 1996. See Appendix B for room-finish and furniture schedules. Currently it serves fast-food from a selection of popular establishments such as Wendys, Sushi and Noodle Bar, Home Zone, and Subway. Figure 3-3 shows the floor plan of the space, where fast food stations are offered on one end of the dining facility, while seating utilizes the rest of the space provided. Thus, in this facility long lines are likely to form at the most popular fast food vendors during peak meal times. Additionally, students typically do not see their food

PAGE 36

25 prepared in front of them nor do they interact with the chefs. In this facility, one size fits all. Figure 3-3 Floor Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility Note. All tables shown were used in this study; tables that were not used are not shown here. Figure 3-4 shows the annotated lighting plan of the space and is color coded in the legend to indicate the lighting fixtures used the track lighting is colored blue, the T8 and T12 compact fluorescents are colored orange, the soffits lighting is colored purple, and the fans are colored cyan. In the Fast Food Dining facility, the subjective lighting is used in the up-lit soffits, as well as track lighting around two of the fast-food vendors.

PAGE 37

26 The functional lighting in this facility consists of T8 and T12 fluorescent lamps in the fast-food vendors and compact fluorescent lamps recessed in dropped ceiling tiles with 3-inch circular openings. Figure 3-4 Lighting Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility Note. Subjective lighting used is track lighting and up-lighting in soffits. Functional lighting used is T/12 and T/8 compact fluorescents. The researcher focused on the food court space of the Fast Food Dining facility because it offered primarily fast food establishments as opposed to residential dining food. In addition, the cafeteria section of the Fast Food Dining facility differed from the

PAGE 38

27 Residential Dining facility in that the layout, or design concept, was primarily on one wall, while in the Residential Dining facility, an open, circular kitchen is utilized. Both dining facilities differed in the color schemes, lighting installations, and fixtures. Additionally, the service and layout of both facilities differ from one another, while still offering several options to each individual student. Participants Research participants were constituted from a convenience sample of students who frequented either the Residential Dining facility or the Fast Food Dining facility during the period when data was collected. Anonymity and confidentiality was assured within each dining facility to each participant. Fifty students from each dining facility were invited to answer the survey. A total of 100 students were surveyed for the entire study. The Residential Dining facility features only open and perimeter seating at tables, while the Fast Food Dining facility features open tables, perimeter seating, and booths, and bars. By considering both the table seating configurations and the facility lighting systems, only the patrons seated at tables in an open central area were recruited. The floor plans for both facilities in Figures 3-1 and 3-3 only show the central area tables that were recruited for this study. Thus, for consistency between dining facilities, students seated in booths, bars, and perimeter tables were not recruited. Students involved in this study were asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire on their year of birth, gender, how often they ate in the given dining hall on a weekly basis, whether or not they had a meal plan, how much money they expected to pay for a meal, how long they typically stayed, and finally, if they ate, socialized, studied, or were involved in any other activity in addition to dining.

PAGE 39

28 Year of Birth Seventy-three percent (n=71) of the participants recruited from both facilities were an average of 19 or 20 years of age at the time of questionnaire completion. Thus, the majority of students in these dining facilities were under-graduate college students. Gender In the Residential Dining facility, the students recruited were 54% (n=27) female and 46% (n=23) male. In the Fast Food Dining facility, 65.3% (n=32) of participants were female, while 34.7% (n=17) of participants recruited were male. Weekly Visits A total of N=99 students completed the question on how often they attended their given dining facility in a week. Students that reported to eating in their given dining facility four or five times a week consist of 18% (n=9) from the Residential Dining facility, and 36.7% (n=18) from the Fast Food Dining facility. Students that replied to eating in their given dining hall more than five times a week consist of 54% (n=27) from the Residential Dining facility, and 26.5% (n=13) from the Fast Food Dining facility. Meal Plans A total of N=99 students completed the yes or no question on whether or not they use a meal plan to purchase their food. There were two types of meal plan memberships: 1) The All Campus Meal Plan and 2) The Regular Declining Balance account, in which money is deducted from an account on the student ID card. In the Residential Dining facility, over twice as many students or 68% (n=34) reported that they used a meal plan, as students did in the Fast Food Dining facility 32.7% (n=16).

PAGE 40

29 Expected Cost per Meal A total of N=99 students completed the question on how much money they expect to pay in one visit to their given dining facility. The students were given seven options for their response that ranged from: $2.00 to $10.00 or more. The choice, $4.01-$6.00, had the majority of responses: 36% (n=18) from the Residential Dining facility and 69.4% (n=34) from the Fast Food Dining facility. The option $6.01-$8.00 was also chosen: 38% (n=19) from the Residential Dining facility and 20.4% (n=10) from the Fast Food Dining facility. Thus, most students recruited from both dining facilities spend at least $4.01, but no more than $8.00 per evening meal. Length of Time Spent per Visit A total of N=99 students completed the question on how much time they typically spend during one visit to their given dining location. The students had five options that ranged from 15 minutes or less, to over 2 hours. In the Residential Dining facility, the majority of participants, 64% (n=32) selected 16-30 minutes. The majority of students from the Fast Food Dining facility 51% (n=25) stayed between 31-60 minutes. Activities A total of N=99 students completed one question with a series of four responses on whether or not they attended the given dining facility to eat, socialize, study, or partake in another activity. All students from both the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility responded positively 100% (n=99) to eating in their given dining facility. It should be noted that all students that enter the Residential Dining facility must pay at the entrance before they were allowed access. The largest percentage of students from both facilities also responded positively to socializing in their environment. A total of 80% (n=40) of the participants from the

PAGE 41

30 Residential Dining facility and 87.8% (n=43) of the participants from the Fast Food Dining facility agreed to socializing. However, the researcher notes that socialization may be more likely to be a property of the students than a property of the space. In response to studying, only 28% (n=14) of students from the Residential Dining facility replied positively, while a slightly larger percentage of students, 55.1% (n=27) from the Fast Food Dining facility agreed that they use the space to study. Finally, the largest percentage of students from both dining halls did not respond to participating in any other activities: 92% (n=46) from the Residential Dining facility and 81.6% (n=40) from the Fast Food Dining facility. Those students were given space to write in what other activities they participated in while dining in their given facility. Procedures and Instruments This study was conducted over a four-week period. Questionnaires were distributed Monday, January 10 th 2005 to Friday February 4 th 2005 during the two hours between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The researcher collected data by five different means: 1) pre-study observations 2) a short demographics questionnaire to collect the students background information, 3) Osgoods Semantic Differential scale to measure students subjective perceptions of the lighting levels, 4) two open-ended questions for the students to qualitatively clarify their positive and negative reactions toward their dining facility, and finally 5) a Likert Scale to measure students preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements (See Appendix C for the full questionnaire). The pre-study observations, the demographics questionnaire, and the two open-ended questions were developed locally by the researcher. The semantic differential scale, the bi-polar adjectives, and the categories of impression determined by Flynn (1973) were adopted for this research. Additionally, the Likert scale was adopted from Biner and Butler (1987,

PAGE 42

31 1989) and was used to determine the four social arrangements for which the students preferences were measured. The researcher gained permission for the study from Jill Rodriguez, Marketing Program Manager for Aramark, which is the food provider for University of Florida Gator Dining facilities. The Residential Dining facility required payment to enter, thus the researcher needed approval from the management of the Residential Dining facility. Approval was not needed from management in the Fast Food Dining facility because it was public and charged no entrance fee. After the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the project, the researcher began her data collection (See Appendix D for IRB Informed Consent Form). A timeline for the project is summarized below. Week One Residential Dining Facility This phase entailed observing students: Recorded range of activities, length of stay, which tables were occupied, and how many people were generally in a party. Week Two Fast Food Dining Facility This phase entailed observing students: Recorded range of activities, length of stay, which tables were occupied, and how many people were generally in a party. Week Three Residential Dining Facility This phase entailed distributing the questionnaire to 50 willing students to determine: 1. Students perceptions of lighting in their space as well as four computer enhanced images of lighting level variations.

PAGE 43

32 2. Students positive and negative reactions to their dining facility 3. Students preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. Week Four Fast Food Dining Facility This phase entailed distributing the questionnaire to 50 willing students to determine: 1. Students perceptions of lighting in their space as well as four computer enhanced images of lighting level variations. 2. Students positive and negative reactions to their dining facility 3. Students preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. Physical Data Collection in the Setting Data Collection Prior to the Formal Study Lighting levels. Prior to the behavioral observations, lighting levels on the table tops were recorded by using a lightmeter to measures footcandles. Luminous intensity is measured and reported in footcandles (fc). One footcandle is equal to the total intensity of light that falls on a one square foot surface that is one foot away from the point source of the light ( www.iesna.org 1999). As determined by the IESNA Lighting Handbook, 8 th edition, the recommended light level for task area dining is 15 footcandles, while the recommended light level for general area dining is 10 footcandles ( www.iesna.org 1999). Footcandle levels on the table tops were measured in each dining facility. In the Residential Dining facility, the footcandle level measured 11 f.c. on the table top, and in the Fast Food Dining facility, the footcandle level measured 10 f.c. on the table top, and thus there is not a large difference between the amounts of light reflected off of these surfaces. The researcher contacted Clint Robinson from the University of Florida Facilities Planning and Construction Office to obtain lighting plans for both dining

PAGE 44

33 facilities. Pat Day, the Maintenance Supervisor for the Fast Food Dining facility, also assisted the researcher in providing information on the lighting fixtures. Digital photographs. The researcher used a digital camera to take photographs of both dining facilities at the same time of night when sunlight would not be a factor in the images. Each photograph was taken of one perspective in each dining facility, and the lighting was adjusted through the use of Adobe Photoshop to yield four variations in light levels of the original image. These adjustments were calibrated by modifying the brightness/contrast option. The categories of variation included very dim (-50), dim (-25), bright (+50), and very bright (+100). These categories were developed from Biner and Butlers (1989) study that tested subjects responses to lighting on a scale from A (very bright) to D (very dark) for a specific behavior within different social settings. See Appendix A for the four lighting level variations in the Residential Dining facility. See Appendix B for the four lighting level variations in the Fast Food Dining facility. The researcher created two booklets containing four photographs of the Residential Dining facility, and four photographs of the Fast Food Dining facility. In total, four booklets of each dining facility were made for the purpose of efficiency, as well as several students eating with more than one person. The photographs in the booklet were the same perspective view in every picture, with the only variation being the lighting level. However, the photographs were randomly placed in the booklets to eliminate copying between students. Also, the photographs were randomized to prevent an ordering sequence effect from very bright to very dim or vice versa. In the Residential Dining facility, the photograph that most similarly resembles the actual space at this evening hour was the image labeled dim, (See Appendix A) and in

PAGE 45

34 the Fast Food facility the photograph that most similarly resembles the space at the same time of night was also the dim image (See Appendix B). Four variations in the given light levels were created to determine the strongest response of the students to their most preferred lighting levels based upon the seven bi-polar adjectives. Pre-study observations. As noted above, observations lasted one week for each dining facility. The pre-study observations provided a basis for understanding the students behavior prior to distribution of the questionnaires. Additionally, the features that the researcher observed helped to construct the questionnaire used in the formal study. See Appendix A for the Residential Dining facilities seating configuration. See Appendix B for the Fast Food Dining facilities seating configuration. Each student the researcher observed was given a number when they sat down at a table. Next, the researcher observed the students and recorded how many people were in the party, which table was occupied according to the number on the floor plan, and how long the students stayed at the table. Additionally, the researcher recorded whether or not the students studied, ate, talked, or participated in any other activity. The number of people in a party, as well as how long the students stayed in the facility helped the researcher to develop the demographic portion of the questionnaire. In the Residential Dining facility the researcher observed alone, however, in the Fast Food Dining facility the researcher utilized an assistant to help observe students due to the vast size of the space. The researcher sat at a different table each night, and was seated at a table in the corner to provide maximum viewing. The researcher also brought books and a notepad to resemble studying.

PAGE 46

35 The amount of time the students in the Residential Dining facility remained at one table ranged from 5 minutes to 112 minutes with a mean of 32.34 minutes. The amount of time the students in the Fast Food Dining facility stayed at a table ranged from 2 minutes to 112 minutes with a mean of 24.96 minutes. In the Residential Dining facility, 98% (n=49) of students who were observed were not studying, while in the Fast Food Dining facility, 78% (n=39) of students observed were not studying. In the Residential Dining facility, 98% (n=49) of students observed were eating, while in the Fast Food Dining facility, 94% (n=47) of students were also eating. In the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility, 50% (n=25) of students observed talked to others. Lastly, in the Residential Dining facility, 100% (n=50) of students did not participate in any other activity, while in the Fast Food Dining facility, 88% (n=44) of students observed did not participate in any other activity. Other activities included listening to headphones, reading magazines, attending group meetings, or talking on a cellular phone. Data Collection during the Formal Study In the Fast Food Dining facility, the researcher was assisted by another person to recruit students to complete the questionnaire. The assistant was located on the opposite side of the Fast Food Dining facility, so as to not approach any students already approached by the researcher. An assistant was not needed during data collection in the Residential Dining facility. Semantic differential scale. The researcher explained to the students that lighting in the dining facility was being studied. The students rated their perception of the lighting in their actual dining facility before judgments were made of the photographs.

PAGE 47

36 The students then stated their perceptions of the lighting levels in the four computer-enhanced photographs using seven bi-polar adjective scales. Figure 3-5 shows the design of the study with two groups of students that were chosen from the residential (subjective and functional lighting) and fast-food (functional lighting) college dining facilities. The students evaluated these four photographs based upon the bi-polar adjectives developed by Flynn, and are outlined under each category of impression (Dislike/Like, Unpleasant/Pleasant, Visually Cool/Visually Warm, Hazy/Clear, Dim/Bright, Blurry/Focused, and Confined/Spacious). College Dining Facilities Figure 3-5 Diagram of Research Design Using a Semantic Differential Scale. Residential Dining (Subjective and Functional Lighting) Fast Food Dining (Functional Lighting) Very Bright Bright Dim Very Dim Very Dim Dim Bright Very Bright Bi-Polar Adjectives Developed by Flynn Evaluative: Dislike/Like Group 1 Group 2 Unpleasant/Pleasant Visually Cool/Visually Warm Perceptual Clarity: Hazy/Clear Dim/Bright Blurry/Focused Spaciousness: Confined/Spacious

PAGE 48

37 Open-ended questions. Two open-ended questions about the students preferences for the dining space were also included. The researcher chose to use open-ended questions because there were several possible answers to these two questions, and the researcher wanted to avoid suggesting answers. Additionally, the researcher wanted the students own words to be used in order to clarify how they felt about the space as well as aspects they would change. Also, open-ended questions determine the salience of an issue. Sommer and Sommer (2002) add that when answering an open-ended question, the items that stand out in a persons mind will be mentioned first. The researcher analyzed students open responses using a domain analysis, which determines common categorical variables in each students data. This was completed by reading the subjects responses and finding a cover or overall term, which encompasses what the subject was trying to convey. Next, all of the cover terms were organized into common themes and hierarchically ordered from the most frequently responded items to the least. These cover terms were then categorized into larger common themes such as positive and negative characteristics of each dining facility. Likert scale. The Likert scale portion of the questionnaire studied the subjects preference for dining in social arrangements. The students were instructed to rate their preference for dining in four different social arrangements based upon the space they were in on a scale from one (never) to five (very often). The students did not refer to the four photographs, but used their own judgment based on being in the space at the time the questionnaire was distributed. The social arrangements being studied were 1) dining with a friend, 2) dining with a romantic partner, and 3) dining with a group of friends, and 4) dining alone. This question sought to determine if either dining facility was more

PAGE 49

38 successful in promoting atmospheres for students who preferred to dine alone, with a friend or groups of friends, or with a romantic partner. Data Analysis Statistical analysis techniques were used on the semantic differential scale, the Likert social scale, the pre-study observations, and the demographics portion of the survey to compare the results of the two dining facilities to determine significant associations. Cross-tabulations were first conducted on the semantic differential scale to determine the students majority of responses in relation to their perception of lighting based on the bi-polar adjectives. A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was used because there was more than one dependent variable. MANOVAS were conducted on the semantic differential scale to determine if the dining facility, the lighting, and the interaction of the dining facility and lighting had statistical significance on students perception of lighting in their space. The two open-ended questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine basic data, such as the means or averages of responses. Lastly, cross-tabulations and a MANOVA were also conducted on the students preferences for dining in types of social arrangements. All statistical analysis was completed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 12.0.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS Students Perception of Lighting Level Variations Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facilitylit with a combination of functional and subjective lightingexpress a significantly greater preference for lighting in this setting than those students who dine in the Fast Food Dining facilitylit predominantly with functional lighting? Students judged the lighting in their space as well as the four computer enhanced photographs of lighting level variations. The following five cross-tabulations provide descriptive numerical data that shows students perceptions of lighting in their space as well as the four variations and is broken down by each bi-polar adjective. The yellow highlighting are the highest responded to items by the students. A five point semantic differential scale was used to rate the lighting based on seven bi-polar adjectives. Table 4-1 demonstrates the differences between students responses in the two contrasting dining facilities based on perceptions of lighting in their space. Table 4-1 shows that the students from the Residential Dining facility had mostly consistent positive responses about the lighting in their space based upon the seven bi-polar adjectives used. In the Fast Food Dining facility, the students responses were inconsistent about the lighting in their space based upon the seven bi-polar adjectives. Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 are summarized below. 39

PAGE 51

40 Table 4-1 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Actual Space. Residential Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 12 (24%) 25 (50%) 8 (16%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 2 (4%) 4 (8%) 12 (24%) 26 (52%) 6 (12%) Cool-Warm 2 (4%) 12 (24%) 13 (26%) 21 (42%) 2 (4%) Hazy-Clear 3 (6%) 15 (30%) 4( 8%) 20 (40%) 8 (16%) Dim-Bright 2 (4%) 9 (18%) 18 (36%) 12 (24%) 9 (18%) Blurry-Focused 1 (2%) 10 (20%) 15 30%) 20 (40%) 4 (8%) Confined-Spacious 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 10 (20%) 22 (44%) 15 (30%) Fast Food Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 1 (2%) 12 (24.5%) 20 (40.8%) 16 (32.7%) 0 (0%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 0 (0%) 10 (20.4%) 21 (42.9%) 18 (36.7%) 0 (0%) CoolWarm 3 (6.1%) 12 (24.5%) 14 (28.6%) 19 (38.8%) 1 (2%) Hazy-Clear 4 (8.2%) 13 (26.5%) 13 (26.5%) 13 (26.5%) 6 (12.2%) Dim-Bright 4 (8.2%) 20 (40.8%) 9 (18.4%) 13 (26.5%) 3 (6.1%) Blurry-Focused 2 (4.1%) 12 (24.5%) 21 (42.9%) 12 (24.5%) 2 (4.1%) Confined-Spacious 4 (8.2%) 6 (12.2%) 20 (40.8%) 16 (32.7%) 3 (6.1%) Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49. Highlighted items are students majority of responses.

PAGE 52

41 Table 4-2 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Bright Image. Residential Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 16 (32%) 17 (34%) 8 (16%) 7 (14%) 2 (4%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 10 (20%) 19 (38%) 11 (22%) 8 (16%) 2 (4%) Cool-Warm 4 (8%) 12 (24%) 16 (32%) 12 (24%) 6 (12%) Hazy-Clear 20 (40%) 19 (38%) 6 (12%) 3 (6%) 2 (4%) Dim-Bright 1 (2% 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 11 (22%) 32 (64%) Blurry-Focused 10 (20%) 25 (50%) 10 (20%) 5 (10%) 0 (0%) Confined-Spacious 0 (0%) 6 (12%) 16 (32%) 23 (46%) 5 (10%) Fast Food Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 9 (18.4%) 23 (46.9%) 8 (16.3%) 7 (14.3%) 2 (4.1%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 6 (12.2%) 23 (46.9%) 11 (22.4%) 8 (16.3%) 1 (2%) Cool-Warm 4 (8.2%) 11 (22.4%) 15 (30.6%) 16 (32.7%) 3 (6.1%) Hazy-Clear 10 (20.4%) 23 (46.9%) 6 (12.2%) 4 (8.2%) 6 (12.2%) Dim-Bright 1 (2%) 4 (8.2%) 4 (8.2%) 16 (32.7%) 24 (49%) Blurry-Focused 8 (16.3%) 19 (38.8%) 11 (22.4%) 6 (12.2%) 5 (10.2%) Confined-Spacious 3 (6.1%) 3 (6.1%) 13 (26.5%) 22 (44.9%) 8 (16.3%) Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49. Highlighted items are students majority of responses.

PAGE 53

42 Table 4-3 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Bright Image. Residential Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 13 (26%) 28 (56%) 4 (8%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 14 (28%) 29 (58%) 4 (8%) Cool-Warm 1 (2%) 12 (24%) 12 (24%) 22 (42%) 3 (6%) Hazy-Clear 1 (2%) 7 (14%) 8 (16%) 24 (48%) 10 (20%) Dim-Bright 3 (6%) 14 (28%) 7 (14%) 25 (50%) 1 (2%) Blurry-Focused 1 (2%) 7 (14%) 8 (16%) 29 (58%) 5 (10%) Confined-Spacious 1 (2%) 12 (24%) 10 (20%) 21 (42%) 6 (12%) Fast Food Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 1 (2%) 11 (22.4%) 10 (20.4%) 18 (36.7%) 9 (18.4%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 1 (2%) 1 (22.4%) 12 (24.5%) 20 (40.8%) 5 (10.2%) Cool-Warm 3 (6.1%) 6 (12.2%) 19 (38.8%) 17 (34.7%) 4 (8.2%) Hazy-Clear 4 (8.2%) 10 (20.4%) 10 (20.4%) 19 (38.8%) 6 (12.2%) Dim-Bright 6 (12.2%) 16 (32.7%) 11 (22.4%) 14 (28.6%) 2 (4.1%) Blurry-Focused 0 (0%) 10 (20.4%) 11 (22.4%) 21 (42.9%) 7 (14.3%) Confined-Spacious 1 (2%) 11 (22.4%) 19 (38.8%) 13 (26.5%) 5 (10.2%) Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49. Highlighted items are students majority of responses.

PAGE 54

43 Table 4-4 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Dim Image. Residential Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 0 (0%) 18 (36%) 12 (24%) 15 (30%) 5 (10%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 1 (2%) 16 (32%) 11 (22%) 20 (40%) 2 (4%) Cool-Warm 4 (8%) 19 (38%) 14 (28%) 10 (20%) 3 (6%) Hazy-Clear 3 (6%) 16 (32%) 15 (30%) 13 (26%) 3 (6%) Dim-Bright 11 (22%) 30 (60%) 7 (14%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) Blurry-Focused 0 (0%) 9 (18%) 17 (34%) 20 (40%) 4 (8%) Confined-Spacious 3 (6%) 15 (30%) 19 (38%) 12 (24%) 1 (2%) Fast Food Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 12 (24.5%) 20 (40.8%) 6 (12.2%) 10 (20.4%) 1 (2%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 8 (16.3%) 31 (63.3%) 5 (10.2%) 3 (6.1%) 2 (4.1%) Cool-Warm 7 (14.3%) 16 (32.7%) 18 (36.7%) 6 (12.2) 2 (4.1%) Hazy-Clear 7 (14.3%) 21 (42.9%) 9 (18.4%) 12 (24.5%) 0 (0%) Dim-Bright 30 (61.2%) 13 (26.5%) 4 (8.2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) Blurry-Focused 4 (8.2%) 14 (28.6%) 13 (26.5%) 15 (30.6%) 3 (6.1%) Confined-Spacious 6 (12.2%) 18 (36.7%) 14 (28.6%) 9 (18.4%) 2 (4.1%) Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49. Highlighted items are students majority of responses.

PAGE 55

44 Table 4-2 summarizes the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities based on the students perception of lighting in the image, very bright. Both groups of students rated the image positively in terms of very bright and quite spacious. The remaining five adjectives were rated overall negatively. Table 4-3 describes the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities based on the students perception of the lighting in the photograph, bright. The students from the Residential Dining facility had consistently positive responses for all possible lighting levels. The students from the Fast Food Dining facility had inconsistent responses across the seven bi-polar adjectives. Table 4-4 illustrates the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities based on the students perception of the lighting in the image, dim. Both groups of students rated this space more negatively than positively. However, as seen in Figure 4-1, the image dim most closely represents the lighting level in the actual residential space. Furthermore, as seen in Figure 4-2, the image dim most closely represents the lighting level in the actual fast food dining space. Table 4-5 shows the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities based on the students perception of the lighting in the photograph, very dim. The students in the Residential Dining facility had almost all negative responses, while the students in the Fast Food Dining facility had entirely consistent negative responses to this lighting level. A MANOVA was conducted, with the Wilks Lambda test statistic used to determine significance. The advantage of using a MANOVA is that it tests for significance with multiple dependent variables; in this study there are seven bi-polar adjectives. The significance level was set at .05. As shown in Table 4-6, the MANOVA

PAGE 56

45 Figure 4-1 Actual Image (Top) Compared to Dim Image (Bottom) of the Residential Dining Facility.

PAGE 57

46 Figure 4-2 Actual Image (Top) Compared to Dim Image (Bottom) of the Fast Food Dining Facility.

PAGE 58

47 Table 4-5 Cross-Tabulation of Students Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Dim Image. Residential Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 22 (44%) 19 (38%) 3 (6%) 5 (10%) 1 (2%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 16 (32%) 21 (42%) 7 (14%) 6 (12%) 0 (0%) Cool-Warm 11 (22%) 10 (20%) 19 (38%) 7 (14%) 3 (6%) Hazy-Clear 14 (28%) 22 (44%) 10 (10%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%) Dim-Bright 44 (88%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) Blurry-Focused 7 (14%) 17 (34%) 15 (30%) 8 (16%) 3 (6%) Confined-Spacious 13 (26%) 19 (38%) 12 (24%) 4 (8%) 2 (4%) Fast Food Dining Bi-Polar Adjectives Perception Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike-Like 34 (69.4%) 8 (16.3%) 4 (8.2%) 2 (4.1%) 1 (2%) Unpleasant-Pleasant 29 (59.2%) 15 (30.6%) 2 (4.1%) 3 (6.1%) 0 (0%) Cool-Warm 19 (38.8%) 6 (12.2%) 18 (36.7%) 4 (8.2%) 2 (4.1%) Hazy-Clear 24 (49%) 14 (28.6%) 8 (16.3%) 2 (4.1%) 1 (2%) Dim-Bright 45 (91.8%) 3 (6.1%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Blurry-Focused 17 (34.7%) 14 (28.6%) 9 (18.4%) 5 (10.2%) 4 (8.2%) Confined-Spacious 21 (42.9%) 11 (22.4%) 11 (22.4%) 4 (8.2%) 2 (4.1%) Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49. Highlighted items are students majority of responses.

PAGE 59

48 statistical analysis revealed that the dining facility had a significant effect on how the space was perceived by the students F(7, 479) = 5.41, p < .05. In addition, the five different lighting level conditions had a significant effect on how the space was perceived by the students F(28, 1728.48) = 30.53, p < .05. Lastly, the interaction between the dining facility and lighting levels also had a significant effect on how the students perceived their space F(28, 1728.48) = 1.52, p < .05. Thus, the statistical significance found here supports the validity of the cross-tabulation data on the students perceptions of the lighting level in their dining facility. Table 4-6 MANOVA of Students Perception of their Space. Value F df p Dining Facility .927 5.410 7 *.000 Lighting .235 30.528 28 *.000 Interaction** .916 1.516 28 *.041 Note. = Significance, p<.05. ** = Interaction of the dining facility and the lighting combined. To further study the significance, the researcher conducted a between-subjects MANOVA that tested the specific variables of the seven bi-polar adjectives. Table 4-7 illustrates the significance levels for the dining facilities affect on how the students perceived their space. Thus, the adjectives dislike/like F(1, 15.76) = 15.35, p < .05, unpleasant/pleasant F(1, 23.20) = 26.74, p < .05, dim/bright F(1, 13.49) = 15.16, p < .05, and confined/spacious F(1, 8.70) = 8.65, p < .05 were all significant to how the students perceived their space. Table 4-8 shows the significance level for the lighting levels affect on how the students perceived their space. In this table, all bi-polar adjectives had a significant affect on how the students perceived their space F(4, 56.45) = 54.98, p <

PAGE 60

49 .05, F(4, 47.97) = 55.29, p < .05, F(4, 11.63) = 10.37, p < .05, F(4, 40.82) = 33.95, p < .05, F(4, 146.36) = 164.50, p < .05, F(4, 24.41) = 23.09, p < .05, F(4, 35.97) = 35.75, p < .05. Lastly, Table 4-9 shows the significance level for the interaction of the dining facility and the lighting levels affect on how the students perceived their space. Now, the adjectives dislike/like F(4, 3.64) = 3.54, p < .05, unpleasant/pleasant F(4, 2.97) = 3.43, p < .05, hazy/clear F(4, 3.57) = 2.97, p < .05, blurry/focused F(4, 2.86) = 2.70, p < .05, and confined/spacious F(4, 2.62) = 2.60, p < .05 all affect how the students perceived their space. Table 4-7 MANOVA of Dining Facilities Affect on Students Perception of their Space. Between-Subjects Sum of Squares F df p Bi-Polar Adjectives Dislike/Like 15.76 15.35 1 *.000 Unpleasant/Pleasant 23.20 26.74 1 *.000 Cool/Warm 2.39 2.13 1 .145 Hazy/Clear 3.64 3.02 1 .083 Dim/Bright 13.49 15.16 1 *.000 Blurry/Focused 2.95 2.79 1 .095 Confined/Spacious 8.70 8.65 1 *.003 Note. = Significance, p<.05.

PAGE 61

50 Table 4-8 MANOVA of Lightings Levels Affect on Students Perception of their Space. Between-Subjects Sum of Squares F df p Bi-Polar Adjectives Dislike/Like 225.79 54.98 4 *.000 Unpleasant/Pleasant 191.89 55.29 4 *.000 Cool/Warm 46.52 10.37 4 *.000 Hazy/Clear 163.29 33.95 4 *.000 Dim/Bright 585.43 164.50 4 *.000 Blurry/Focused 97.63 23.09 4 *.000 Confined/Spacious 143.90 35.75 4 *.000 Note. = Significance, p<.05. Table 4-9 MANOVA of Interaction of Dining Facilities and Lightings Affect on Students Perception of their Space. BetweenSubjects Sum of Squares F df p Bi-Polar Adjectives Dislike/Like 14.54 3.54 4 *.007 Unpleasant/Pleasant 11.89 3.43 4 *.009 Cool/Warm 1.96 .44 4 .782 Hazy/Clear 14.28 2.97 4 *.019 Dim/Bright 2.41 .68 4 .609 Blurry/Focused 11.42 2.70 4 *.030 Confined/Spacious 10.48 2.60 4 *.035 Note. = Significance, p<.05.

PAGE 62

51 The findings suggest that the combination of successful functional and subjective lighting systems used in the Residential Dining facility had a positive affect on how the students perceived their space, and as well, elicited consistent shared impressions and shared changes in impressions as the lighting in the space was varied. While functional and subjective lighting was also used in the Fast Food Dining facility, the unsuccessful installations and fixtures contributed to the fact that the students did not share their impressions of the lighting in their space, as well as did not share changes in their perception of the space as the lighting level was varied. Students Positive and Negative Responses toward their Dining Facility Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facilitywith an open kitchen and enhanced food choicesexpress a higher preference score for their overall dining experience than students in the Fast Food Dining facilitywith a closed kitchen and limited food choices? This portion of the questionnaire consisted of two open-ended questions about the students positive and negative reactions toward their dining facility. The dependent variables included the students responses, and the independent variables were the two contrasting dining facilities. In the Residential Dining facility, students had 193 responses with a 60% positive response, and a 40% negative response. In the Fast Food Dining facility, the students had 168 responses, with a 44% positive response, and a 56% negative response. Residential Dining Facility In analyses of the responses from the students from the Residential Dining facility, the researcher first read and recorded all written responses, and then categorized these into cover terms, which signify an overall meaning of a category. The Residential

PAGE 63

52 Dining facility received a total of n=115 positive responses, and a total of n=78 negative responses. Table 4-10 outlines the top four responses (food, spaciousness, design, lighting) and all other responses were categorized under the term, other. The items that are in the other category include music, staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and social qualities. Table 4-10 Open-Ended Responses from the Residential Dining Facility Students. Positive Negative Food Setup/Selection 27%, n=31 Food Setup/Selection 28%, n=22 Spaciousness 14%, n=16 Lighting 17%, n=13 Design 14%, n=16 Design 15%, n=12 Lighting 10%, n=11 Spaciousness 9%, n=7 Other 35%, n=40 Other 31%, n=24 Total= 100%, N=114 100%, N=78 Note. Other includes music, staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and social qualities. The term, location, had the third largest response; however, it was dropped from the data because only interior variables are being considered for this study. Positive responses. The terms used for positive responses for the Residential Dining facility were organized from the most reaction to the least reaction. The four highest responses are outlined here. The term, food setup/selection received the most responses (27%, n=31). Some examples of students positive reactions were towards the variety of foods, the flow specifically the round serving area, all you can eat dining, and the easy access to the food. Spaciousness had the second largest responses (14%, n=16); and the positive comments included the overall spaciousness, the open feeling, and ample seating. One student wrote that he liked the design of a space within a space, referring to the traffic area separate from the seating area, which is separate from the ordering area. The design of the space also had the second largest response (14%, n=16). The students positively

PAGE 64

53 responded to the layout of the space, the separation between food service and seating, the open kitchen, and the modern, comfortable dcor. The lighting in the dining hall had the fourth largest response (9%, n=10). The students responses were optimistic towards the right amount of light used (intensity) and the diverse selection of lighting fixtures. Students commented that the lighting is very open and bright and it doesnt look gloomy. One student wrote that the lighting was very spatial and that they liked the different fuses of lighting in different orientations. Negative responses. The terms used for the negative responses for the Residential Dining facility were also organized from the most frequent to the least frequent. The four highest responses are outlined here. Notably, while the most positive responses from the Residential Dining facility were reactions to the food setup/selection, the most negative responses were also to the food setup/selection (28%, n=22). The students reported that they would like more focus on the food selection or variety, healthier balanced food, better quality food, and easier access to the food. Lighting was the item with the highest negative response (17%, n=13). The students were split between the lighting needing to be brighter, and the lighting being too bright. One student wrote that the lighting needs to be a little brighter with more focus on the food than the interior decoration. Other students responded negatively to the fluorescent fixtures, the glare, a need for more perimeter lighting, as well as more intimate sources of lighting. This split between the students preferences for the lighting being too dim or too bright may be caused by the different activities students participate in while dining. For example, some students may want to study and

PAGE 65

54 thus would need a higher level of illumination, while other students may want to dine in a more intimate environment, which would be supported by low levels of illumination. The design of the facility also had the third largest negative responses (15%, n=12) as it did positive responses. The students reported that the space was not comfortable, the tables were laid out too sporadically, it had a cold, factory look, and it had an overall very busy, cluttered look. The spaciousness was responded to negatively as well (9%, n=7). The students wrote that more tables are needed and that the space often is crowded during peak hours. Interpretations of these results as well as generalized guidelines for designers will be discussed in chapter five. Fast Food Dining Facility In analyses of the responses from the students of the Fast Food Dining facility, the researcher first read and recorded all written responses, and then categorized them into terms. The Fast Food Dining facility received a total of n=74 positive responses, and n=94 negative responses. Table 4-11 outlines the top four responses and all other responses were categorized under the term, other. The top four positive responses are spaciousness, food, social qualities and music, while the top four negative responses are spaciousness, lighting, design, and food. The items that are in the other category include staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and studying. Positive responses. The terms used for the positive responses for the Fast Food Dining facility were organized from the most reaction to the least reaction. The four highest responses are outlined here. The most frequent term used, spaciousness, (31%, n=23) was positively received in terms of openness, abundance of seating, accessibility, and large tables. A response from one student was that it had ample seats it was spread out and there was a clever

PAGE 66

55 Table 4-11 Open-Ended Responses from the Fast Food Dining Facility Students. Positive Negative Spaciousness 31%, n=23 Spaciousness 30%, n=28 Food Setup/Selection 15%, n=11 Lighting 17%, n=16 Social Qualities 14%, n=10 Design 16%, n=15 Music 8%, n=6 Food Setup/Selection 11%, n=9 Other 32%, n=23 Other 26%, n=24 Total= 100%, N=73 100%, N=92 Note. Other includes staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and studying. The term, location, had the second largest response; however, it was dropped from the data because only interior variables are being considered for this study. utilization of the space. Next, the food setup/selection (15%, n=11) was received well in terms of the food vendors, as well as the different varieties of food stations offered. The social qualities of the space were also highly received (14%, n=10) by the students in reaction to the friendly environment and the constant movement or flow of people. One student commented that they liked the mutual ground between students and teachers. Negative responses. The terms used for the negative responses for the Fast Food Dining facility were also organized from the most reaction to the least reaction. The four highest responses are outlined here. In addition to the term spaciousness having the most positive responses from the students, spaciousness also had the majority of negative responses from the students (30%, n=28). The students reported that there needed to be more space between the tables, it was too crowded at meal times, there should be more tables overall, and the dining area should be expanded. The next term, lighting, had several negative responses (17%, n=16). The largest percentage of students felt the lighting conditions in the space were too harsh and glaring. One student commented that the lighting was too bright to

PAGE 67

56 bring a romantic partner. Additionally, they believed that there should be bright, white lights, as opposed to the dim fluorescent lighting currently in use. Also, several students responded negatively to the fans under the lighting fixtures which caused a noticeable flicker. The next term, design, had several negative reactions (16%, n=15) in that there should be some addition to the dcor, such as coffee tables or sofas for groups to work and study together. Furthermore, the students added that there should be a separation between different areas for privacy or groups of students. The next factor, food setup/selection, (10%, n=9) had responses from students stating that they wanted all of the facilities to be open later, in addition to having a larger selection of dining venues. Figure 4-3 shows pie charts of the top four positive and negative responses from the students in the Residential and Fast Food Dining facilities. There was a total of N=114 positive, and N=78 negative responses from these five dimensions in the Residential Dining facility. There was a total of N=73 positive, and N=92 negative responses from these five dimensions in the Fast Food Dining facility. As mentioned above, the other category includes all other items the students responded to. Lastly, the term location was greatly responded to positively in both dining facilities; however, because interior variables are only being considered for this study, it was eliminated from the results and pie charts.

PAGE 68

57 27% 28% 35% 31% 14% 9% 17% 10% 15% 14% Residential (Positive) Residential (Negative) Note. Other includes music, staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and social qualities. Food Design Music Other (See Note) Lighting Spaciousness Social 31% 30% 32% 26% 11% 8% 15% 17% 16% 14% Fast Food (Positive) Fast Food (Negative) Note. Other includes staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and studying. Figure 4-3 Pie Charts of Frequency of Responses for the Residential (Top) and Fast Food (Bottom) Dining Facilities.

PAGE 69

58 Students Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social Arrangements Do students in these two contrasting dining facilities differ significantly in their preferences for dining with a friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone? This final closed-ended portion of the questionnaire asked the students to rate their preference, on a scale from one (never) to five (very often), for dining in their facility in four types of social arrangementswith a friend, romantic partner, group of friends, and alone. In this test, the dependent variables were the types of social arrangements. The independent variable was the dining facility, which consisted of two levels (the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility). Four different types of social arrangements were cross-tabulated with both dining facilities to determine which types of social arrangement was the strongest in each dining facility. It should be noted that the questionnaires instructions explicitly stated that the students were to judge their preference for dining in each social arrangement based upon the space they were in, not on any of the photographs. Table 4-12 demonstrates that there is no correlation between the dining facility and students preferences for dining in any of the four different types of social arrangements. The social arrangement of the students bringing a friend (arrangement 1) to the dining facility had the responses of very often. The social arrangement of the students bringing a romantic partner (arrangement 2) to their dining facility had overwhelming responses of never. Additionally, the students responded to occasionally dining with a group of friends (arrangement 3) from both dining facilities. Lastly, students also responded to occasionally dining alone (arrangement 4) in both facilities.

PAGE 70

59 Table 4-12 Cross Tabulation of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social Interactions. Residential Dining Contexts Preferences Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often Friend 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 11 (22%) 9 (18%) 25 (50%) Romantic Partner 32 (64%) 10 (20%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 6 (12%) Group 1 (2%) 10 (20%) 18 (36%) 13 (26%) 8 (16%) Alone 4 (8%) 15 (30%) 16 (32%) 9 (18%) 6 (12%) Fast Food Dining Contexts Preferences Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often Friend 0 (0%) 5 (10.2%) 15 (30.6%) 14 (28.6%) 15 (30.6%) Romantic Partner 21 (42.9%) 14 (28.6%) 7 (14.3%) 6 (12.2%) 1 (2%) Group 2 (4.1%) 11 (22.4%) 14 (28.6%) 9 (18.4%) 13 (26.5%) Alone 9 (18.4%) 13 (26.5%) 14 (28.6%) 8 (16.3%) 5 (10.2%) Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49. Highlighted items are students majority of responses. A MANOVA was conducted, with the Wilks Lambda test statistic used to determine significance. As shown in Table 4-13, the MANOVA statistical analysis reveals that the dining facility did not have a significant effect on the students preferences for dining in any of the four types of social arrangements F(4, 94) = 2.10, p > .05.

PAGE 71

60 Table 4-13 MANOVA of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social Interactions. Value F df p Dining Facility .92 2.10 4 .087 Upon closer examination of Biner and Butlers (1989) study, the researcher re-coded the data into three categories of dining: 1) alone, 2) platonic, and 3) romantic partner to test for significance. These categories are clear and specific types of dining arrangements. The researcher conducted a new MANOVA with the updated and re-coded categories, and Table 4-14 reveals that once again, statistical significance was not found F(3, 194) = 1.67, p > .05. Table 4-14 Re-Coded MANOVA of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social Interactions. Value F df p Dining Facility .98 1.67 3 .174 The lack of statistical significance found on the dining facilities affect on the students preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements reinforces the results from the students cross-tabulation data. Therefore, the students from both dining facilities do not differ in their preferences for dining in any of the types of social arrangements. Summary In the current study, empirical evidence indicated that both the dining facility and the lighting levels had a significant effect on how the space was perceived. Additionally, the interaction of the facilities and lighting levels together were associated with how the space was perceived by the students. The students in the Residential Dining facility

PAGE 72

61 supported Flynns (1973) theory based upon consistent shared impressions of their facility, and shared changes in impressions as the lighting in their facility was varied. The students from the Fast Food Dining facility had inconsistent impressions for the lighting in their facility, as well as inconsistent impressions in the variations in lighting levels as depicted in the four photographs. Students written responses on their positive and negative reactions towards their facility also gave insight into the numerous dimensions that are important to creating a successful dining facility. The Residential Dining facility received more positive responses than negative responses. The Fast Food Dining facility received more negative responses than positive responses. However, all replies and reactions toward the space were valuable to the researcher in determining general guidelines for designers, which will be discussed in chapter five. Lastly, it was determined that the dining facility had no significant effect on the students preferences for dining in the four different types of social arrangements.

PAGE 73

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The presence of food and the anticipation of eating seem to create an atmosphere of comfort and informality, a softening of the situation, encouraging participants to feel more relaxed and to enjoy themselves, even if they are alone (Franck, 2002 p.12). Interior designers, architects, and facility planners design holistic settings, and base their designs on a large number of variables. Empirical studies, such as Flynns lighting research, can only provide limited evidence and recommendations for designers because experimental studies must isolate variables one at a time to test their significance. Inferences about one variable are of limited use to designers until they are tested in a natural setting. Therefore, this exploratory study was conducted in a holistic setting of two contrasting University of Florida dining facilities. The procedures and instruments were identified from significant studies (Flynn, 1973; Biner and Butler, 1989) and linked heuristically. This study yielded empirical findings in students perceptions of lighting and environmental preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements in campus dining facilities. Merit can be found in exploring a complex natural setting as a way to develop design guidelines. Therefore, the current study establishes a dialog between several possible dimensions that go into creating a successful dining facility from the students point of view. Another positive result of carrying out this study with a holistic, exploratory approach was that the students were able to be observed in the pre-study phase in their natural, existing environment, and these observations were then used to design measures 62

PAGE 74

63 to isolate the variables of lighting, dining preferences, and social arrangement. Furthermore, after these observations were conducted and absorbed, the researcher could return to the same settings and survey the students about their perceptions of the lighting based on Flynns categories of impressions (EI, PC, S), as well as preferences for dining, and preferences for types of social arrangements in their setting. The importance of returning to the contextual setting where the observations were made was critical to this study because unlike previous research, the students taking part in the survey were in the setting when they answered the survey questions. Empirical studies completed in controlled or a-contextual settings do not provide the realistic and complex setting to the participants that the current study was able to achieve. One limitation to this study is the use of two groups of students rather than one that could dine in both facilities. Thus, the two groups of students from each facility were convenience samples that were unable to compare the two facilities. Therefore, it is not possible to definitively say which setting is better or, which lighting design is more successful. Another limitation to this exploratory study is that there are three research questions rather than one. The three questions were not theoretically linked and therefore answers cannot be linked empirically. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that each question is relevant and warrants further investigation. Furthermore, logical connections can be made between the findings that will provide designers with generalized guidelines on the dimensions studied. Lastly, it is important to remember that people comment on things they care about. Although this study does not produce empirically linked findings, the logical associations made between the three research questions posed, as well as the

PAGE 75

64 inferences made from the data, can contribute to designers seeking to create a successful dining facility. Interpretations of Students Perceptions of Variations in Light Levels Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facilitylit with a combination of functional and subjective lightingexpress a significantly greater preference for lighting in this setting than those students who dine in the Fast Food Dining facilitylit predominantly with functional lighting? The findings conclude that the students in the Residential Dining Facility had a greater preference for their perception of lighting in their setting than the students in the Fast Food Dining facility. Flynns (1973) hypothesis was supported by the students responses to the semantic differential scale in a natural campus dining setting. The students from the Residential Dining facilities consistent impressions of the lighting in their space, as well as their consistent shared impressions of the variations in lighting are in line with Flynns research. However, the students in the Fast Food Dining facility had inconsistent impressions of the lighting conditions in their actual space. Also, Flynn (1973) defined and isolated three main categories of impressions that may affect how people perceive lighting in their space. The interaction of the dining facility and the lighting significantly influenced how students perceived five of the adjectives developed by Flynn. The evaluative, or emotional impressions that yielded significance were the adjectives dislike/like, and unpleasant/pleasant. The perceptual clarity or functional impressions that were found to be significant were hazy/clear and blurry/focused. Lastly, the spaciousness, or interior architecture adjective that was determined significant was confining/spacious. Therefore, designers and architects should be aware that lighting systems can impact students perceptions of their space, and

PAGE 76

65 thus should take into consideration these five adjectives when designing lighting systems to afford for a likeable, pleasant, clear, focused and spacious university dining facility. Lastly, not only do the findings in this study support Flynns hypothesis as stated earlier, but several contributions were made in addition to Flynns work. First, this study was conducted in a natural holistic setting of two contrasting college dining facilities; one, a residential dining space, and two, a common fast food space. Unlike Flynns a-contextual laboratory research, the current study was conducted in a contextual setting. Second, pre-study observations were made of the students in both dining facilities before distributing the survey. Thus, the researcher was able to understand the students behavior before any data was collected. In addition, through pre-study observations, it was found that the students in the Residential Dining facility stayed approximately ten minutes longer in this location, and thus this supports the semantic differential findings that indicate that these students have a higher preference for their dining facility than the Fast Food Dining students do. In addition, this study was triangulated by adding open-ended questions, and preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. Lastly, the current study used computer-enhanced photographs to depict the four variations in the lighting levels of the two dining facilities. Interpretations of Students Positive and Negative Reactions toward their Dining Facility Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facilitywith an open kitchen and enhanced food choicesexpress a higher preference score for their overall dining experience than students in the Fast Food Dining facilitywith a closed kitchen and limited food choices?

PAGE 77

66 The findings infer that the students in the Residential Dining facility had a higher preference for their dining experience than the students in the Fast Food Dining facility. When asked directly what the students liked and disliked about their setting, the Residential Dining facility received a majority of positive responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility received a majority of negative responses. Additionally, the students in the Residential Dining facility had consistent top four responses, both positively and negatively for food, spaciousness, lighting, and design. Although the four items were rated both positively and negatively, it is clear that these items are important to students when occupying a university dining facility. Thus, students care about the food, but also important, they care about the design, the spaciousness, and the lighting the physical environment. However, in the Fast Food Dining facility, there were not as clear indications of the top four important dimensions to students in this space. One consistent positive and negative response from the students in the Fast Food Dining facility was the term spaciousness. The students indicated that spaciousness may be defined in several ways, and were not merely the facilities square footage. While several positive responses related to the Fast Food Dining facilities physical size, the same proportion of responses were negative, thus indicating that other factors are important to how students perceive spaciousness. Furthermore, because the Fast Food Dining facility was two and a half times larger than the Residential Dining facility, factors such as over-crowding or distracting ambient noise may lead the students to feel the space is closing in on them, leading to over-stimulation and thus, a perception of non-spaciousness. Nonetheless, students pay attention to their dining facility, and they have opinions about how well it suits their needs.

PAGE 78

67 Interpretations of Students Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social Arrangements Do students in these two contrasting dining facilities differ significantly in their preferences for dining with a friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone? The findings deduce that there is no association between the dining facility and the students preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. Biner and Butler (1989) hypothesized that lighting levels and social arrangements both affect arousal, and it was found that brightness preferences were lower with romantic partners than with a platonic friend or with a group of platonic friends. In Biner and Butlers empirical study, when individuals maintain an optimal arousal level, then preferred lighting levels for particular settings should vary in different social arrangements. While the Likert scale results for the current study did not yield any significant findings, inferences can be made that link the physical design setting to the students arousal level. The Fast Food Dining facility did not have a stimulating physical design; however, it was possible that the students were over-stimulated by such elements as the volume and size of the space, the number of students that frequented the space, and the ambient noise. This may explain the students low preferences for their dining facility. Additionally, the Residential Dining facility did have a stimulating physical design, and therefore it may be inferred that the students moderate arousal level affected their positive response to their dining facility. However, this study did not link students preferences for social arrangements with variations in lighting levels, but only students preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements in the space.

PAGE 79

68 Limitations It should be noted that several factors influenced and impacted the results of this study. Initially, students who were seated at tables being recruited who were unwilling to take part in the questionnaire were limiting. The photographs taken for this study vary in that the images from the Residential Dining facility contain more people than the images from the Fast Food Dining facility. Although students are not comparing photographs between facilities, the presence of people dining in the Residential Dining facility may have represented a more sociable dining atmosphere than the absence of people in the images from the Fast Food Dining facility. Another limitation of the photographs is that because the lighting levels were manipulated in Adobe Photoshop, footcandle measurements could not be recorded for these variations. Also, a selection bias was used to limit this study, because students were more likely to be recruited who attended their facility more often, and thus typically stayed longer. In relation to this, questionnaires were distributed at one facility in one week and at the second facility the next week. However, it would have been more reliable to this study to alternate between facilities day by day to account for unknown factors, such as possible exams during one week. Suggestions for Further Research As noted by Sommer and Sommer (2002), If you want to find out what people do, you should observe them. If you want to find out what they think, you should ask them directly (p.60). Through this study, information was sought that may be applied to other university dining facilities. While this study yielded several individual questions and separate ideas, further studies need to logically connect and develop on these three research questions. Additional exploration of students perceptions of lighting levels, as

PAGE 80

69 well as their environmental preferences for their dining facility, and preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements must be completed before definitive results can be concluded. As discussed earlier, this study is holistic and exploratory in nature. Therefore, empirical research should be conducted that focuses on each research question individually; or one variable should be consistently studied in each research question to empirically link all data. Further research should compare two contrasting dining facilities with one group of students. Through this one group, students could attend both dining facilities for a specified number of days per week and then could make comparisons of both facilities. Additionally, students could complete a short questionnaire each time they visit the facility to consistently track their perceptions of the lighting levels. Thus, methodical data collection tools are required as this may draw conclusions that are more definitive. Additionally, further studies should increase the time for data collection. This data was collected during four weeks at the start of the spring semester, and schedules could have affected several factors such as how long the students stayed in the space, or whether or not they studied. For further studies, physical lighting dimmers should be used for the spaces being studied, as opposed to variations in lighting levels through photographs. While it was successful for the students to complete the questionnaire in the space itself, validity would have further increased if the lighting levels were to be manually adjusted and recorded for each adjustment with a light-meter. Therefore, the students would not have to respond to photographs depicting different lighting level variations, but would have been able to see the variations of the lighting levels in the space while completing the

PAGE 81

70 questionnaire. One way to complete this would be to change the lighting levels during closed hours in order to measure any changes in the students responses. However, the students would have to be present each day the lighting was changed. Furthermore, if the lighting levels were to be adjusted manually, this technique should be used for determining the students preferences for dining in different social arrangements. As previously mentioned, the final research question on students preferences for social arrangements was not connected to the first research question on students perceptions of lighting levels within their setting. This remains to be tested in another study in a natural, holistic setting. However, if the three categories used in the first research question (EI, PC, S) could be tied into students preference for dining in four types of social arrangements, this will also link the variable of lighting. Therefore, the students would be responding to their preference for dining in different social arrangements in their space as well as the four variations in lighting levels. For example, students may prefer dining with a group of friends in bright lighting, while students may prefer dining with a romantic partner in dim lighting. In addition, further questions and data collection tools should be examined. Students, staff and management should be interviewed to obtain a more complete, qualitative concept of the students desires, as well as the staff and managements concerns. Suggestions for Architects, Designers, Facility Planners, and College Dining Management Generalized guidelines have been constructed that can be applied for both types of the contrasting dining facilities. These guidelines should be taken into consideration by architects, designers, and facility planners, as well as university management who are seeking to create a successful college dining facility that goes beyond the standard and

PAGE 82

71 explores deeply into the overall dining experience of the students. In addition to these guidelines, designers should consider using digital photographs as a tool in surveying students preferences for their dining facility before construction begins. Furthermore, design drawings could be evaluated in terms of the three categories of impressions for judging lighting: evaluative, perceptual clarity, and spaciousness, before the facility was completed. Thus, meeting the students preferences for these categories will afford for a successful dining facility. Lighting The combination of functional and subjective lighting systems in college dining facilities creates a cohesive, compositional design element. The use of compact fluorescents provides large spaces with ample lighting without causing glare or flicker. Decorative lighting fixtures also create attractive focal points for the eye, as well as contributing to an informal, relaxed ambience. Lighting fixtures should be installed non-uniformly at specific points of interest to lead the eye around the room, such as over table tops. Additionally, the findings from the students open-ended responses indicated that the combination of functional and subjective lighting in the Residential Dining facility received both positive and negative responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility, lit with predominantly functional lighting received all negative responses. Thus, providing college dining facilities with a cohesive assortment of functional and subjective lighting fixtures will be more preferred than a purely functional lighting system. According to the IESNA Lighting Handbook, 8 th edition, the recommended light level for task area dining is 15 footcandles, while the recommended light level for general area dining is 10 footcandles (www.iesna.org 1999). Also, as Ozturk (2003) emphasized, three variables must be taken into consideration in order to provide a successful lighting

PAGE 83

72 environment: the number of luminaires, the luminous intensity distribution, and the placement of the luminaires. Depending on the size of the space, as well as its function of residential or fast food type dining, the IESNA Lighting Handbook should be consulted to provide for these three variables. Furthermore, because studying was observed and reported in the Fast Food Dining facility, designers should consider creating spaces or zones for defined tasks such as group studying, individual studying, and group meetings, in addition to dining areas simply used for eating. Therefore, different types of lighting fixtures and installations in addition to the settings ambient lighting should be incorporated into these defined zones. For example, task lighting may be used in studying zones, while accent lighting may be integrated in group meeting zones. Therefore, students will be more likely to have an optimal arousal level while dining or studying due to the combined functional and subjective lighting installations that reinforce the various zones and tasks. Design The dining facility should offer seating areas that afford for social arrangement as well as spaces for individuals who wish to dine alone. Also, ample seating should be provided for students during peak meal times. In large cafeteria-like spaces, the backs of chairs should be kept at a distance to prevent bumping when sitting down and standing up (21-24 Chiara et al., 2001). A social atmosphere can be created by placing some tables in circular cluster arrangements that will also afford for group studying. Secluded, quiet zones are useful for students who wish to study or dine alone. Additionally, variations in table sizes are useful for large groups who are dining or studying together as well as people who are dining or studying alone.

PAGE 84

73 For students using computers, several outlets should be installed in the walls, the floor, or in the tabletop, depending on the table arrangements. Also, wireless internet should be installed for computer networks. In Residential Dining facilities, an open kitchen should be utilized to promote arrangement between staff and students. Additionally, this will create short lines during peak meal hours. In Fast Food Dining facilities, several choices of vendors will reduce long lines as well as afford for customer satisfaction by providing many options. The use of some soft materials, such as fabric on the chairs, or carpet designed for commercial use, will reduce the distracting noise level. Additionally, if music is to be played, it should be rotated between different genres of music to satisfy all customers preferences. Also, the temperature of the facility should not be too cold so that it affects the temperature of the students food. Just the same, if the temperature is too warm, the students will be uncomfortable in the dining space. Lastly, a cohesive color scheme that is not too bright and jarring, but that is also not one plain color should be considered. The use of warm, saturated colors such as shades of red and orange provide a quick turnover of customers, while cool, colors such as shades of blue and green promote relaxation and a longer time spent in the facility. One color scheme should be applied throughout the space, as well as in the details, such as the dishware, furniture and fixtures. Food Provide the students with food options, such as healthy foods for a balanced diet. Also, consider using local resources to keep the food seasonal and fresh. Specifically, in Residential Dining facilities, during off-peak hours there should be a consistent selection of food available to students. Also, to minimize lines in open kitchens, several chefs should be cooking at stations for meals that are prepared individually, such as sandwiches

PAGE 85

74 or omelets. In Fast Food Dining facilities, a wide variety of fast food vendors should open for longer hours due to students various schedules (5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.). Conclusion The pleasure of eating is one we share with animals . The pleasures of the table are known only to the human race (Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, p. 182). There is a significant increase in the modernization of university dining, and thus, more designers are looking to the students needs to fulfill these requirements. This researcher hopes to shed light on the importance of students perceptions of lighting levels, preferences for dining facilities, and preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements in order to create and foster successful college dining facilities. Conclusively, the findings indicate that lighting is important in both residential and fast-food type campus dining facilities for a number of issues that designers care about. The type and quality of the lighting does significantly affect students reported perceptions of lighting in their setting three ways: 1) how a person emotionally evaluates lighting, 2) how a person functionally evaluates lighting, and 3) how a person spatially evaluates lighting. The students positive and negative preferences toward their dining facility also shed light on the several dimensions important to creating and fostering a successful dining facility. This will further contribute to the field of research in students perceptions to lighting in university dining settings, as well as students environmental preferences for their dining facilities. Lastly, the general guidelines outlined above provide important contributions to designers that will further enhance students overall experience when dining on campus.

PAGE 86

APPENDIX A RESIDENTIAL DINING FACILITY Figure A-1 Residential Dining Very Dim Figure A-2 Residential Dining Dim 75

PAGE 87

76 Figure A-3 Residential Dining Bright Figure A-4 Residential Dining Very Bright

PAGE 88

77 Table A-1 Residential Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule Floor Walls Ceiling Finish Baseboards Materials Dark None Lime Green Paint Open Plenum Brown Dark Purple Paint Suspended cables Concrete Block Painted black cables, Orange HVAC system, Wall-length windows and trusses. Brick Red Clerestory Window Teal Stained Concrete With Semi-gloss Finish.

PAGE 89

78 Table A-2 Residential Dining Facility Furniture Schedule Chairs Tables Dimensions Materials Dimensions Short Chairs Short Chairs Short Small Tables: Seat diameter: 16 Seat: Black Vinyl 24x30x30 Seat height: 18 Frame: Steel Painted Total Height: 30 Gray Short Medium Tables 30x48x30 Tall Chairs Tall Chairs Short Large Tables Seat diameter: 16 Seat: Black Vinyl 30x72x30 Seat height: 30 Frame: Steel Painted Total Height: 42 Gray Tall Small Tables 24x30x42.5 Tall Medium Tables 30x48x42.5

PAGE 90

79 Figure A-5 Residential Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy

PAGE 91

APPENDIX B FAST FOOD DINING FACILITY Figure B-1 Fast Food Dining Very Dim Figure B-2 Fast Food Dining Dim 80

PAGE 92

81 Figure B-3 Fast Food Dining Bright Figure B-4 Fast Food Dining Very Bright

PAGE 93

82 Table B-1 Fast Food Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule Floor Walls Ceiling Finish Baseboards Materials Seating= None Wendys Acoustical 12x12 Sushi & Tiles Carpet tiles Noodle Bar (2x2) (Woven blue, Home Zone Green, red, Subway Dropped Purple and Gypsum Neutral). Wall-length Ceiling Windows (Off-White) Circulation= Terrazzo Supporting Wood Veneer (Beige/ columns Paneling in Yellow) Off-White Fabric Soffits Hanging Ceiling Fans

PAGE 94

83 Table B-2 Fast Food Dining Facility Furniture Schedule Chairs Tables Dimensions Materials Dimensions Short Chairs Short Chairs Short Small Tables: Seat Diameter: 18 Seat: Dark Blue Vinyl 24x30x30 Seat Height: 18 Frame: Steel Painted Total Height: 37 Brown Short Medium Tables 30x48x30 Tall Chairs Tall Chairs Short Large Tables Seat Diameter: 18 Seat: Dark Blue Vinyl 30x60x30 Seat Height: 30 Frame: Steel Painted Total Height: 42 Brown Round Tables: 48 Diameter Height=30

PAGE 95

84 Figure B-5 Fast Food Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy

PAGE 96

APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE Assessing the College Dining Experience This study examines your perceptions of the lighting conditions in this dining facility as well as your preferences for this dining location. You will be shown four different photographs on which to make your judgments. You will also be asked to answer two questions on the space you are in. There are no correct or incorrect answers. I am only interested in your preferences of the photographs and of the space you are in. Thank you for your time and participation. 85

PAGE 97

86 Semantic Scale Instructions The following instructions explain how you are to use the scales provided. If you feel that the photograph is very closely related to one end of the scale, you should place the check mark as follows: Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like OR Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like If you consider the photograph to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the photograph, then you should place the check mark as follows: Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like If the photograph is slightly related to one end of the scale, but not neutral, you should place the check mark as follows: Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like OR Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like Be sure to read both words before you make your decision. Place your check marks as shown above in the blank spaces, do not circle a word. Be sure you check every scale for every photograph. Never put more than one check mark on a single scale. Please do not look back and forth through the items. Work at a fairly high speed through this questionnaire. Do not worry over individual items. I am only looking for your first thoughts. You are now ready to begin the questionnaire. For Question # 1 use the SPACE you are in to complete the scale. For Question #2-5 Please use the attached booklet.

PAGE 98

87 1. To what degree does the lighting in the space invoke a perception of Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Unpleasant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pleasant Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Visually [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Visually Cool Warm Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Hazy [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clear Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Bright [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Dim Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Focused [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Blurry Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Confining [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Spacious

PAGE 99

88 2. To what degree does the lighting in Photograph 1 invoke a perception of Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Unpleasant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pleasant Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Visually [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Visually Cool Warm Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Hazy [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clear Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Bright [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Dim Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Focused [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Blurry Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Confining [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Spacious

PAGE 100

89 3. To what degree does the lighting in Photograph 2 invoke a perception of Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Unpleasant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pleasant Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Visually [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Visually Cool Warm Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Hazy [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clear Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Bright [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Dim Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Focused [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Blurry Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Confining [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Spacious

PAGE 101

90 4. To what degree does the lighting in Photograph 3 invoke a perception of Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Unpleasant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pleasant Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Visually [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Visually Cool Warm Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Hazy [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clear Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Bright [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Dim Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Focused [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Blurry Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Confining [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Spacious

PAGE 102

91 5. To what degree does the lighting in Photograph 4 invoke a perception of Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Unpleasant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pleasant Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Visually [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Visually Cool Warm Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Hazy [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clear Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Bright [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Dim Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Focused [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Blurry Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very Confining [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Spacious

PAGE 103

92 Social Scale Please Circle One Answer IN THIS DINING SPACE, HOW OFTEN DO YOU 1. Dine with a Friend? Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often 1 2 3 4 5 2. Dine with a Romantic Partner? Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often 1 2 3 4 5 3. Dine with a Group of Friends? Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often 1 2 3 4 5 4. Dine Alone? Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 104

93 Open Questions 1. What do you like best about this dining space? 2. What would you change about this dining space?

PAGE 105

94 1. Please specify the year you were born: 19____ 2. Please specify your gender a. Male___ b. Female___ 3. How many times a week do you visit this location? a. First Visit___ b. One___ c. Two or Three___ d. Four or Five___ e. More than Five___ 4. Are you on a meal plan? a. Yes___ b. No___ 5. How much do you expect to pay for a meal at this location? a. $0-$2.00___ b. $2.01-$4.00___ c. $4.01-$6.00___ d. $6.01-$8.00___ e. $8.01-$10.00___ f. More than $10.00___ g. I do not know___ 6. How long do you normally stay at this location? a. 15 Minutes or Less___ b. 16-30 Minutes___ c. 31-60 Minutes___ d. 61 Minutes to 2 Hours___ e. Over 2 Hours___ 7. What activities do you participate in at this location? (Check all that apply) a. Eating___ b. Socializing___ c. Studying___ d. Other___

PAGE 106

APPENDIX D INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT FORM Protocol Title: University students subjective preferences for dining locations and perceptions of lighting in two contrasting college dining facilities. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: To investigate University of Florida students subjective preferences for eating and socializing in a particular social setting as well as their subjective perceptions of lighting levels. What you will be asked to do in the study: To complete a total of three questionnaires. Time required: Approximately 15 minutes. Risks and Benefits: No more than minimal risk. There is no direct benefit to the participant in this research. However, through the findings of this research I hope to provide a guide for designers seeking to create a college dining environment that affords for greater customer satisfaction. Compensation: There is no compensation for participating in this study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The questionnaire will not ask for your name to be provided. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Holly Sutherin, College of Design, Construction, and Planning, Department of Interior Design, 138 ARCH, (352) 514-7566, hbsutherin@earthlink.net Dr. Mary Joyce Hasell, 362 ARCH, PO Box 115705, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0252 x337, hasell@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433 I have read the procedure outlined above. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study and have received a copy of this description. Participants signature and date _____________________________________________ 95

PAGE 107

96 Principle investigators signature and date ______________________________________________

PAGE 108

REFERENCES Baron, R., & Rea, M. (1991). Lighting to soothe the mood. Lighting Design and Application, 12, 30-32. Bernecker, C. A., & Mier, J. M. (1985). The effect of source luminance on the perception of environment brightness. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 15(1), 253-271. Biner, P. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). An arousal optimization model of lighting level preferences. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 3-16. Birren, F. (1988). Light, color, & environment. West Chester, PA: Schiffer. Boyce, P. R. (1973). Age, illuminance, visual performance, and preference. Lighting Research and Technology, 5(3), 125-144. Brillat-Savarin, J. A. (1986). The physiology of taste (M.F.K. Fisher, Trans.). San Francisco: North Point Press. Butler, D. L., & Biner, P. M. (1987). Preferred lighting levels: Variability among settings, behaviors, and individuals. Environment and Behavior, 19(6), 695-721. Chiara, J. D., Panero, J., & Zelnik, M. (2001). Time-saver standards for interior design and space planning. New York: McGraw Hill Davis, R. G. (1986). Computer graphics as a design tool. Lighting Design and Application, 16(6), 38-40. Few, S. (2004). Tapping the power of visual perception. CMP Media LLC. http://www.intelligententerprise.com. Flynn, J. E. (1977). A study of subjective responses to low energy and non-uniform lighting systems. Lighting Design and Application, 7(2). Flynn, J. E. (1973). Concepts beyond the I.E.S. framework. Lighting Design and Application, 1(3), 4-11. Flynn, J. E., & Subisak, G. J. (1978). A procedure for qualitative study of light level variations and system performance. Journal of IES, 8(1), 28-35. 97

PAGE 109

98 Flynn, J. E., Hendrick, C., Spencer, T., & Martyniuk, O. (1979). A guide to methodology procedures for measuring subjective impressions in lighting. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 8, 95-110. Flynn, J. E., Spencer, T. J., Martyniuk, O., & Hendrick, C. (1973). Interim study of procedures for investigating the effect of light on impression and behavior. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 3, 87-94. Fotios, S. A. (2001). Lamp color properties and apparent brightness: A review. Lighting Research and Technology, 33(3), 163-181. Franck, K. A. (2002). Food + architecture, architectural design. London: Wiley-Academy. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gifford, R. (1988). Light, dcor, arousal, comfort, and communication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 177-189. Harlow, J. (2004). College dining goes to a whole new class. Manchester, NH: Union Leader. Heerwagen, J. H., & Heerwagen, D. R. (1986). Lighting and psychological comfort. Lighting Design and Application, 16(4) 47-51. Heft H., & Nasar, J. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32(3) 301-322. Horwitz, J., & Singley, P. (2004). Eating architecture. (p.5) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Houser, K. W., & Tiller, D. K. (2003). Measuring the subjective response to interior lighting: Paired comparisons and semantic differential scaling. Lighting Research and Technology, 35(3), 183-198. Houser, K. W., Tiller, D. K., Bernecker, C. A., & Mistrick, R. G. (2001). The subjective response to linear fluorescent direct/indirect lighting systems. Lighting Research and Technology, 34(3), 243-264. Jay, P. A. (2002). Review: Subjective criteria for lighting design. Lighting Research and Technology, 34(2), 87-99. Jay, P. A. (1967). Scales of luminance and apparent brightness. London: Illuminating Engineering Society. 60, 42-45. Koschmann, N., & Wesp, R. (2001). Using a dining facility as an introductory psychology research laboratory. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 105-108.

PAGE 110

99 Kumar, A. (2003). A new food revolution on campus. St. Petersburg Times Florida: Times Publishing Company. Lee, J. (2005). Colleges go the fresh food route. Ventura County Star: Ventura, CA. Mahnke, F., & Mahnke, R. (1987). Color and light in man-made environments. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Marsden, A. M. (1969). Brightness A review of current knowledge. Lighting Research and Technology, 1(3) 171-181. Marsden, J. P. (1997). Assisted living housing for the elderly: Symbolic and physical properties of homeyness. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI. Mattus, C. (2004). Crowding plagues dining halls at Boston College. The Heights via University Wire: Chestnut Hill, MA. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Moore, T., Carter, D. J., & Slater, A. (2003). A qualitative study of occupant controlled office lighting. Lighting Research and Technology, 35(4), 297-317. Muecke, J. (2004). Food to go: the industrialization of the picnic. In J. Horwitz & P. Singley (Eds.), Eating architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (235-236). Newman, I., Benz, C., Weis, D., & McNeil, K. (1997). Theses and dissertations. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. Ornstein, S. (1992). First impressions of the symbolic meanings connoted by reception area design. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 85-110. Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197-236. Ozturk, L. D. (2003). The effect of luminance distribution on interior perception. Architectural Science Review, 46(3), 233-236. Robson, S. (1999). Turning the tables: The psychology of design for high-volume restaurants. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(13), 56-58. Schapter, M. (1999). Perception of depth in photographs. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 22(2) 71-74. Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2002). Behavioral research. New York: Oxford University Press. Stamps, A. (1990). Use of photographs to stimulate environments: A meta analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.

PAGE 111

100 Tejera, D. (2004). Dartmouth dean speaks on campus overcrowding. The Dartmouth via University Wire: Hanover, NH. Tiller, D. K., & Veitch, J. A. (1995). Perceived room brightness: Pilot study on the effect of luminance distribution. Lighting Research and Technology, 29(2), 93-101. Tiller, D. K. (1990). Toward a deeper understanding of psychological aspects of lighting. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 19, 59-65. Tiller, D. K., & Rea, M. S. (1992). Semantic differential scaling: Prospects in lighting research. Lighting Research and Technology. 24(1) 43-52. Veitch, J. A., & Gifford, R. (1996). Assessing beliefs about lighting effects on health, performance, mood and social behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(4) 446-470. Veitch, J. A. (1997). Revisiting the performance and mood effects of information about lighting and fluorescent lamp type. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 253-262. Wright, J. T. (1985). Ideological productions in the food service industry. University of California: Irvine, CA. Yonan, J. (2004). Food for thought in a Yale dining hall, students are getting an education in eating that helps themselves, and local growers. Globe Newspaper Company: The Boston Globe.

PAGE 112

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Holly Sutherin was born in 1982 in Charleston, South Carolina. During high school she was involved in classical clarinet performance, and through this was able to travel internationally to such countries as Australia, Austria, and Germany. She also took up black and white photography, and through these activities, developed an appreciation for the arts. After graduating from Lake Brantley High School with honors, she received the Bright Futures Scholarship to attend the University of Florida in 2000, studying Interior Design in the College of Design, Construction, and Planning. After completing her sophomore year, she attended the Vicenza Institute of Architectures Interior Design summer program in Italy, which also gave her the opportunity to travel to France and Switzerland. During her junior year, she enrolled in the 4+1 one program, in order to obtain a Master of Interior Design one year after completion of her bachelors degree. In 2004, she graduated with a Bachelors of Design, and in 2005, she will obtain a masters degree. Upon completion of her academic studies, she will move back to her hometown of Orlando, Florida, to work for the prestigious architectural firm, Farmer and Company Architects. 101


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011461/00001

Material Information

Title: University students' perceptions of lighting and preferences for the setting and social arrangements in contrasting dining facilities
Physical Description: xi, 101 p.
Language: English
Creator: Sutherin, Holly ( Dissertant )
Hasell, Mary Jo ( Thesis advisor )
Portillo, Margaret ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Interior Design   ( local )

Notes

Abstract: This exploratory study conducted within a holistic setting, investigated university students perceptions of lighting, preferences for the setting, and preferences for the social arrangements in contrasting University of Florida dining facilities. Notable lighting researcher John Flynn focused on the psychological effects of lighting, and believed that there are shared impressions among users of a space, as well as shared changes in impression as the lighting level in the space is varied. Flynn also developed three categories of impressions upon which users define their space: 1) evaluative, or emotional, 2) perceptual clarity, or functional, and 3) spaciousness, or spatial design. In the current study, these three categories of impressions were used for the students to evaluate their perception of lighting in their space as well as variations in lighting levels as depicted in four computer-enhanced photographs. One dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because of its design, lighting, and food selection, labeled as a residential restaurant. The other dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because of its contrasting date of construction, lighting, design, and fast-food style selection. A questionnaire was distributed to one group of 50 willing participants from each dining facility after sunset because daylight and sunlight were not a factor in this research. The questionnaire included a semantic differential scale to test the students perception of lighting levels, two open-ended questions for the students to respond to on both the positive and negative aspects of their dining facility, and a Likert scale to measure the student's preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. It was determined that the students' perceptions of lighting levels in their dining facility did have an affect on how they perceived their space. The participants from the Residential Dining facility had more consistent positive and negative responses than the students from the Fast Food dining facility. Additionally, the interaction of the dining facility and the lighting significantly influenced how students perceived the five adjectives dislike/like, unpleasant/pleasant, hazy/clear, blurry/focused, and confining/spacious. The two open-ended questions revealed that the Residential Dining facility received a majority of positive responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility received a majority of negative responses. Lastly, no connection was found between the students preferences for dining in social arrangements; however, it was determined that neither setting was perceived as appropriate for a romantic dinner. Therefore, designers and architects should be aware that lighting systems influence students perceptions of the space in terms of its emotional, functional, and spatial qualities. Also, students paid attention to the design, the lighting, and the space, and clearly expressed opinions about how well it suited their needs.
Subject: dining, lighting, perception, preferences, students, university
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 112 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011461:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011461/00001

Material Information

Title: University students' perceptions of lighting and preferences for the setting and social arrangements in contrasting dining facilities
Physical Description: xi, 101 p.
Language: English
Creator: Sutherin, Holly ( Dissertant )
Hasell, Mary Jo ( Thesis advisor )
Portillo, Margaret ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Interior Design   ( local )

Notes

Abstract: This exploratory study conducted within a holistic setting, investigated university students perceptions of lighting, preferences for the setting, and preferences for the social arrangements in contrasting University of Florida dining facilities. Notable lighting researcher John Flynn focused on the psychological effects of lighting, and believed that there are shared impressions among users of a space, as well as shared changes in impression as the lighting level in the space is varied. Flynn also developed three categories of impressions upon which users define their space: 1) evaluative, or emotional, 2) perceptual clarity, or functional, and 3) spaciousness, or spatial design. In the current study, these three categories of impressions were used for the students to evaluate their perception of lighting in their space as well as variations in lighting levels as depicted in four computer-enhanced photographs. One dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because of its design, lighting, and food selection, labeled as a residential restaurant. The other dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because of its contrasting date of construction, lighting, design, and fast-food style selection. A questionnaire was distributed to one group of 50 willing participants from each dining facility after sunset because daylight and sunlight were not a factor in this research. The questionnaire included a semantic differential scale to test the students perception of lighting levels, two open-ended questions for the students to respond to on both the positive and negative aspects of their dining facility, and a Likert scale to measure the student's preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. It was determined that the students' perceptions of lighting levels in their dining facility did have an affect on how they perceived their space. The participants from the Residential Dining facility had more consistent positive and negative responses than the students from the Fast Food dining facility. Additionally, the interaction of the dining facility and the lighting significantly influenced how students perceived the five adjectives dislike/like, unpleasant/pleasant, hazy/clear, blurry/focused, and confining/spacious. The two open-ended questions revealed that the Residential Dining facility received a majority of positive responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility received a majority of negative responses. Lastly, no connection was found between the students preferences for dining in social arrangements; however, it was determined that neither setting was perceived as appropriate for a romantic dinner. Therefore, designers and architects should be aware that lighting systems influence students perceptions of the space in terms of its emotional, functional, and spatial qualities. Also, students paid attention to the design, the lighting, and the space, and clearly expressed opinions about how well it suited their needs.
Subject: dining, lighting, perception, preferences, students, university
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 112 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011461:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF LIGHTING AND PREFERENCES
FOR THE SETTING AND SOCIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN CONTRASTING DINING
FACILITIES















By

HOLLY SUTHERIN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Holly Sutherin







































This thesis is dedicated to Dad, Mom, Ross, and Phoebe.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my chair, Dr. M. Jo Hasell, and my committee member, Dr.

Margaret Portillo, for their guidance and encouragement throughout this thesis project. I

am very grateful for Dr. Hasell's determination and support, as well as her great

involvement in this thesis. My committee's constant help, assistance and time devoted

made this thesis possible. I would also like to thank Jill Rodriguez, Marketing Manager

for Gator Dining Aramark, for her valuable time and aid in completing this research.

Additionally, my gratitude goes out to the University of Florida staff and students from

the dining facilities used in this study. Without their willingness and patience to

complete my questionnaire, this study would not have been a success.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to my friend, Miriam Garcia, who not

only assisted in this research, but also provided her time and endless emotional support.

Finally, I would like to thank my family most of all for their enduring support and

encouragement of my aspirations in life. Without them I would not be the person that I

am today.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............. ........... .. .......... ............ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x

CHAPTERS

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Statement of Purpose ............................................ ..................... ........ 2
S ig n ific a n c e .......................................................... ................ .. 4
R research D design ............................................... .......................... 6
A ssu m option s ............................................................................ 7

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................... .............. 8

History: Subjective Lighting Design Research.....................................................8
Lighting in College D ining Facilities ................................. ...................................... 10
L ig h tin g ....................................................................................................................... 1 1
P e rc e p tio n ....................................................................................................... 1 2
A parent Brightness .................................. .. ......... .... ...............14
Subjective R research ................................................................ .. ...... ... ...... 16
Com puter Graphics ................................................. ........ ........ .... 19
Sum m ary ...................................... ................. ................. .......... 20

3 RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY ........................................ .......................... 21

R research Setting ................................... .. .... ..... .. ............21
P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 2 7
Y ear of B irth ................................................................................................28
G e n d e r ........................................................................................................... 2 8
W eek ly V isits ...............................................................2 8
M e a l P la n s ..................................................................................................... 2 8
Expected Cost per Meal ................................. ................................. 29
Length of Time Spent per Visit ........................................................... 29



v









A ctiv itie s...................................................2 9
Procedures and Instruments ........... .. .................................. 30
Physical D ata C collection in the Setting ........................................... .....................32
Data Collection Prior to the Formal Study ............... .................32
Data Collection during the Formal Study................................. ...... ............ ...35
D ata A nalysis................................................... 38

4 FINDINGS ............. ..... ........................................... 39

Students' Perception of Lighting Level Variations ............................... ...............39
Students' Positive and Negative Responses toward their Dining Facility ................51
Residential Dining Facility............................. ..... ...................51
Fast Food D ining Facility ........................................................ ...................... 54
Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social Arrangements .................58
Sum m ary .............................. ................... .......................... 60

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 62

Interpretations of Students' Perceptions of Variations in Light Levels ...................64
Interpretations of Students' Positive and Negative Reactions toward their Dining
F facility ............................. ........ ...... . ........... ...... .............. 65
Interpretations of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social
Arrangements .......... .. ............ ...................67
L im stations ............................................................................... .. ........... ..... 68
Suggestions for Further R esearch......................................................... ...................68
Suggestions for Architects, Designers, Facility Planners, and College Dining
M anagem ent ............. ...... .. .................... ...............70
L ig h tin g ...............................................................................................................7 1
D e sig n ............. ................. .................................................................... 7 2
Food ............. .. .................................... ........ ...... ..... ........ 73
C conclusion ............. ................................................................................. 74


APPENDIX

A RESIDENTIAL DINING FACILITY ................................... .............................75

B FAST FOOD DINI G FACILITY ........................................ ........................ 80

C Q U E ST IO N N A IR E ......................................................................... .....................85

D INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT FORM.................95

R E F E R E N C E S ........................................ ........................................................... .. 9 7

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 101
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Features of Residential and Fast Food Dining Facilities............... ...................22

4-1 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Actual
Sp a ce. ........................................ .................... ................ 4 0

4-2 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Bright
Im a g e ............................................................................ 4 1

4-3 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Bright
Im a g e ............................................................................ 4 2

4-4 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Dim Image....43

4-5 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Dim
Im a g e ............................................................................ 4 7

4-6 MANOVA of Students' Perception of their Space. ...............................................48

4-7 MANOVA of Dining Facilities' Affect on Students' Perception of their Space. ...49

4-8 MANOVA of Lightings Levels' Affect on Students' Perception of their Space. ....50

4-9 MANOVA of Interaction of Dining Facilities' and Lightings' Affect on
Students' Perception of their Space. ............................................. ............... 50

4-10 Open-Ended Responses from the Residential Dining Facility Students ................52

4-11 Open-Ended Responses from the Fast Food Dining Facility Students ..................55

4-12 Cross Tabulation of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social
Interactions. ...........................................................................59

4-13 MANOVA of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social
Interactions. ...........................................................................60

4-14 Re-Coded MANOVA of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Different
Social Interactions. ......................................... ................. .... ....... 60

A-1 Residential Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule ...........................................77









A-2 Residential Dining Facility Furniture Schedule ..................................................78

B-l Fast Food Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule .................................................82

B-2 Fast Food Dining Facility Furniture Schedule ............................... ............... .83
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

3-1 Floor Plan of Residential Dining Facility ..... ................................................23

3-2 Lighting Plan of Residential Dining Facility .........................................................24

3-3 Floor Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility........................................ ............... 25

3-4 Lighting Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility .................................. ...............26

3-5 Diagram of Research Design Using a Semantic Differential Scale.......................36

4-1 Actual Image (Top) Compared to "Dim" Image (Bottom) of the Residential
D in in g F facility .............................................................................. ............... 4 5

4-2 Actual Image (Top) Compared to "Dim" Image (Bottom) of the Fast Food
D ining F facility .............................................................................. ............... 4 6

4-3 Pie Charts of Frequency of Responses for the Residential (Top) and Fast Food
(B ottom ) D ining F facilities. ........................................................... .....................57

A -i R residential D ining Very D im ........................................... ......................... 75

A -2 Residential D ining -D im .......................................................... ............... 75

A -3 R residential D ining B right.......................................................................... ..... 76

A-4 Residential Dining Very Bright ........................................................ ............... 76

A-5 Residential Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy ........................79

B-l Fast Food D ining Very D im ............................................................................ 80

B -2 F ast F ood D ining -D im ................................................................. ..................... 80

B -3 Fast Food D ining -Bright............................................... .............................. 81

B-4 Fast Food Dining -Very Bright ...................................................... .............. 81

B-5 Fast Food Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy ............................84















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF LIGHTING AND PREFERENCES
FOR THE SETTING AND SOCIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN CONTRASTING DINING
FACILITIES

By

Holly Sutherin

August, 2005

Chair: Dr. Mary Jo Hasell
Major Department: Interior Design

This exploratory study conducted within a holistic setting, investigated university

students' perceptions of lighting, preferences for the setting, and preferences for the

social arrangements in contrasting University of Florida dining facilities. Notable

lighting researcher John Flynn focused on the psychological effects of lighting, and

believed that there are shared impressions among users of a space, as well as shared

changes in impression as the lighting level in the space is varied. Flynn also developed

three categories of impressions upon which users define their space: 1) evaluative, or

emotional, 2) perceptual clarity, or functional, and 3) spaciousness, or spatial design. In

the current study, these three categories of impressions were used for the students to

evaluate their perception of lighting in their space as well as variations in lighting levels

as depicted in four computer-enhanced photographs.

One dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen

because of its design, lighting, and food selection, labeled as a residential restaurant. The









other dining facility on the main campus of the University of Florida was chosen because

of its contrasting date of construction, lighting, design, and fast-food style selection. A

questionnaire was distributed to one group of 50 willing participants from each dining

facility after sunset because daylight and sunlight were not a factor in this research. The

questionnaire included a semantic differential scale to test the students' perception of

lighting levels, two open-ended questions for the students to respond to on both the

positive and negative aspects of their dining facility, and a Likert scale to measure the

student's preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements.

It was determined that the students' perceptions of lighting levels in their dining

facility did have an affect on how they perceived their space. The participants from the

Residential Dining facility had more consistent positive and negative responses than the

students from the Fast Food dining facility. Additionally, the interaction of the dining

facility and the lighting significantly influenced how students perceived the five

adjectives dislike/like, unpleasant/pleasant, hazy/clear, blurry/focused, and

confining/spacious. The two open-ended questions revealed that the Residential Dining

facility received a majority of positive responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility

received a majority of negative responses. Lastly, no connection was found between the

students' preferences for dining in social arrangements; however, it was determined that

neither setting was perceived as appropriate for a romantic dinner. Therefore, designers

and architects should be aware that lighting systems influence students' perceptions of

the space in terms of its emotional, functional, and spatial qualities. Also, students paid

attention to the design, the lighting, and the space, and clearly expressed opinions about

how well it suited their needs.














CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

"Sharing food with another human being is an intimate act that should not be
indulged in lightly. "-M F K Fisher

In the 1950s, US public university dining facilities were the "culinary equivalent of

the industrial line" (Muecke, 2004, p.236) where students ate tasteless cafeteria food at

tables with bench seating lit by harsh fluorescent lighting. By the mid 1990s, fast-food

franchises replaced most cafeterias but still required students to wait in long lines to eat

bland food prepared hours earlier in uninspiring interior settings (Kumar, 2003). By the

turn of the 21st Century, the campus food service industry was a $9.5 billion dollar

business (Kumar, 2003) and the residential restaurant was at the center of the latest

innovation in campus dining. Residential restaurants are an attempt to create a modem

and comfortable physical setting as well as enhanced fresh food choices to incoming

students, faculty members, administrators, and guests to the campus.

In spite of this trend and others, Horwitz and Singley (2005) argue that little is

known about the perceptions and preferences of students who dine in these campus

facilities. As college campus planners begin to move away from the standard delivery of

food and to design alternative facilities, new efforts are required to explore students'

perceptions and preferences for campus dining experiences. This study aims to provide

information to interior designers, architects, university decision makers, and facility

planners about students' perceptions of lighting levels, preferences for dining settings,









and preferences for types of social arrangements within contrasting campus dining

facilities.

While research has been completed on the perceptions of lighting in many settings,

this researcher found no information on how lighting levels are perceived by students in

college dining environments. Most studies that test the subjective aspects of lighting

focus on such spaces as offices, hospitals, and even manufactured lighting laboratories

(Butler & Biner, 1987; Flynn & Subisak, 1978; Moore et. al., 2003; Ornstein, 1992).

These studies have found that people's moods, emotions, productivity, and alertness are

influenced by the lighting in their space.

Additionally, numerous articles have been written on newly renovated and newly

constructed college dining facilities across the nation (Harlow, 2004; Koschmann &

Wesp, 2001; Kumar, 2003; Lee, 2005; Mattus, 2004; Tejera, 2004, and Yonan, 2004).

However, these normative articles focus on new trends in college dining facilities, and

lack any empirical research on students' subjective responses to lighting. For the purpose

of this study, the term subjective is defined as something particular to an individual, or a

reality that is perceived rather than factual knowledge (www.m-w.com). To rectify the

existing gap in knowledge, the current study focuses on college dining facilities because a

critical empirical analysis is required to provide guidelines for designers and architects

seeking to create a healthy and successful campus dining facility.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate within a natural holistic

setting, college students' perceptions of lighting levels, environmental preferences for

dining, and preferences for dining in different social arrangements in two contrasting

University of Florida campus dining facilities. Two separate groups of students, one









from a fast food dining facility and the other from a residential dining facility were

solicited to take part in this study.

Three research questions were formulated as the focus of this study and are listed as

follows:

1. Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facility-lit with a

combination of functional and subjective lighting-express a more positive perception for

lighting in this setting than those students who dine in the Fast Food Dining facility-lit

predominantly with functional lighting?

2. Do students who dine in the Residential Dining facility-with an open

kitchen and enhanced food choices-express a higher preference score for their overall

dining experience than students in the Fast Food Dining facility-with a closed kitchen

and limited food choices?

3. Do students in these two contrasting dining facilities differ significantly in

their preferences for dining with a friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone?

Multiple methods were used to conduct this research and included a survey

instrument with both closed and open-ended questions. A closed-ended semantic

differential scale was used to understand the students' perceptions of the lighting in their

space, as well as computer-enhanced photographs of each facility with four variations in

lighting levels. Students' perceptions were measured in response to the four photographs

of both the Fast Food Dining facility containing predominantly fast food franchises, and

the Residential Dining facility that utilizes the trend of residential dining. Two open-

ended questions collected students' positive and negative reactions towards these dining

spaces, as well as open-ended responses about their preferences. Finally, a closed-ended









Likert scale assessed the students' preferences for the type of social arrangement they

preferred in the dining facility. The choices included dining with a friend, a romantic

partner, a group of friends, and alone within each dining facility.

Significance

Dining Halls are being constructed nationwide to meet the heightened culinary

expectations and social experiences of college students today. Bill Kolb, the Admissions

Director at the University of Florida says, "It's all about wooing the student," with high

academic scores and scholarships (Kumar, 2003 p.3). John Barnhill, the Admissions

Director at Florida State University adds, "Anything can be the trigger...you never want

to overlook anything that can make the school more attractive" (p.3). New residential

restaurants on campus attempt to provide one of these triggers. They offer many

advantages such as food being made to order in front of the student, all-you-can-eat

buffets, and a wide selection of quality food. Kumar adds that with these trends

developing, the university designers and planners also realize that other factors, such as

lighting, finishes, colors, and convenience need to be addressed in order to provide a

complete, successful dining environment. For example, Kumar notes that booths are

installed and wall murals are painted in these new residential dining facilities, out-dated

fluorescent lighting fixtures are being removed and replaced with a mix of modern

fixtures or even streetlights.

The customary use of specific types of lighting can reveal to users what type of

restaurant they are eating in (Wright, 1985). Wright states that college dining facilities

can be classified as "fast-food," or "cafeteria," where design goals are to keep people

moving and discourage lingering. A quick turnover, or the amount of business done in a

cycle, is important when designing a college dining facility to afford for optimal









business. Light can have an effect on a restaurants' turnover. Wright adds that cool,

bright fluorescent lighting systems have been found to decrease patrons' stay in a

restaurant and are utilized in order to promote high turnover. By contrast, warm, dim

lighting, as often seen in high-end restaurants, increases a patron's stay and thus

decreases turnover. The current research builds on this foundation to test students'

perceptions and four variations in lighting levels in two campus dining facilities with

different interior design, food service, and lighting installations. The Residential Dining

facility and the Fast Food Dining facility use both subjective and functional lighting

systems, however, the installations in fixtures used in both facilities contrast one another.

Subjective lighting involves a symbolic, compositional design element that goes

beyond the recommended lighting codes and standards (Tiller & Veitch, 1995).

Subjective lighting is also significant in how users perceive their lit environment. Gifford

(1988) found that people seated in well-lit areas perceived their environment more

positively than participants seated where there is inadequate or un-interesting lighting.

Jay (2002) explains two types of lighting; functional and subjective. Subjective lighting

can be found in such environments as churches, hotel foyers, high-class retail,

restaurants, clubs, and so on, to achieve an intimate setting, while the main purpose of

functional lighting is ease of seeing, as in office spaces. In the current study, both the

Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility have a combination of

subjective and functional lighting systems. However, the Residential Dining facility uses

modern updated lighting installations, wall sconces, and track lighting, while the Fast

Food Dining facility primarily uses functional lighting, soffits lighting, and minimal track









lighting. For the purpose of this study, the names of both dining facilities have been

changed.

Jay (2002) identified four main differences between functional and subjective

lighting installations. First, uniform lighting that is used to light a whole space is termed

functional while subjective installations rarely use uniform lighting. Rather, they use

beams of concentrated light on particular areas of interest, such as the top of a dining

table or on a piece of artwork. Second, functional lighting has plain and simple fixtures

that do not attract attention or attempt to create a focal point, while subjective lighting

installations are ornamental, made of expensive materials, and contribute to the mood and

ambience of the room.

Third, functional lighting is installed at specific points for uniform illumination;

while subjective lighting is directed at significant places so the eye is led easily from one

area to another without any breaks, such as from entrance to table to table to bar. Finally,

functional lighting is required to illuminate a space for a specific task, while subjective

installations are typically arranged in settings of low reflectance and therefore only

require a small proportion of the space to be illuminated well enough for accurate

perception. Subjective lighting will be discussed further in chapter two.

Research Design

The independent variables for the current study included the Residential Dining

facility and the Fast Food Dining facility, as well as the students' demographics (age,

gender, frequency of visits per week, whether or not the subject was on a meal plan, cost

for one meal, length on time spent per visit, and what activities were completed). The

dependent variables were 1) the students' perception of lighting as recorded by a

semantic differential seven bi-polar adjective list, applied to the five different lighting









levels measured (including the space itself), 2) the open-ended responses, and 3) the

students' preferences for the type of social arrangements in the setting with a friend, a

romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone.

Assumptions

Several assumptions underlie this study. First, the researcher assumes that all

students recruited were a representative sample of University of Florida students who

regularly attend or have attended the dining facilities. Second, any student can purchase

a meal plan system to use in either dining facility. Thus, the "meals per week" is limiting

because the Fast Food Dining facility is not included in this plan. Third, it is assumed

that all lighting levels measured with a light meter were accurate and free of mechanical

error. Fourth, it is assumed that the light levels measured initially remain at a consistent

footcandle.

The delimitations set in this research are few. The restaurant selection was

delimited to two dining halls with contrasting designs, lighting, and food selections

located on the main campus at the University of Florida located in Gainesville, Florida.

Also, this study was delimited to a public land-grant institution. Additionally, the time

period in which the questionnaires were distributed was delimited to after sunset. Thus,

sunlight and daylight were not a factor in this research. Lastly, the researcher notes that

the size of the Fast Food Dining facility (18,683 sq. ft.) was two and a half times larger

than the size of the Residential Dining facility (7,481 sq. ft.).














CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

History: Subjective Lighting Design Research

The current study focused primarily on students' perceptions of lighting levels in

two contrasting dining facilities. In the 1960s and 1970s researchers in lighting design

(Boyce, 1973; Gibson, 1979; Jay, 1967; Marsden, 1969) such as John Flynn (1973, 1977,

1978, 1979) sought to understand the effects of lighting and how it influences peoples'

feelings and perceptions of an interior space. According Murdoch and Caughey (2004),

Flynn was a twentieth century lighting pioneer and researcher who focused on the

psychological effects of lighting. Flynn hypothesized that there are consistent and shared

patterns of impressions among users of a space, as well as consistent changes in

impression as the lighting in the space is varied. He proposed that there is more to

perception than physiological processes,

".. visual consciousness does not seem to be completely explainable with the
simple notion of an optical image imposed on the retina of the eye and
photographically interpreted by the brain instead, we find indications that there
is considerable selectivity in the process of visual experience" (87).

Through experimentation, Flynn recorded the subjective perceptions of users in

terms of both the lighting arrangement and illumination levels. In the 1970s, the concept

of providing a satisfying illuminance level, a pleasant atmosphere, and clear visual cues

were reasonably new and untested. Because his work was completed nearly 40 years

ago, there have been several empirical follow-up studies that use Flynn's methods of

analysis as a guide for measuring subjective reactions to lighting (Bernecker & Mier,









1985; Biner & Butler, 1989; Boyce, 1973; Houser & Tiller, 2003; Jay, 2002; Ozturk,

2003; Tiller & Veitch, 1995). While these criteria are evident and relevant today,

progress was made in the field of subjective lighting and how it influences peoples'

perceptions and feelings due to Flynn and his followers' dedication to providing updated

research in the field of lighting.

Students' perceptions of lighting levels concerning the three main categories of

impressions that Flynn (1973) defined and isolated were: evaluative impressions,

perceptual clarity, and spaciousness. "Evaluative Impressions" (EI) describe the

emotional aspects that people use to judge a space. Designers can reinforce how people

emotionally judge their space by incorporating low-level overhead diffuse and down-

lighting as well as peripheral wall lighting. El can also be defined by bi-polar adjectives

such as pleasant/unpleasant, dislike/like, and visually cool/visually warm. "Perceptual

Clarity" (PC) are functional ways in which people evaluate a space. Designers can

strengthen these evaluations by featuring horizontal luminance from high intensity

overhead diffuse lighting, as well as a combination of overhead down-lighting, diffused

lighting, and peripheral lighting. Bi-polar adjectives that describe PC include clear/hazy,

bright/dim, and focused/unfocused. Lastly, "spaciousness" (S) is used to evaluate a space

on its spatial interior architecture. Designers can emphasize spaciousness with peripheral

lighting as well as a combination of overhead down-lighting, diffused lighting, and

peripheral lighting. Bi-polar adjectives that describe S are spacious/cramped. These

categories of impressions were used in the current study to understand how students

perceived emotionally, functionally, and spatially, the lighting in their setting based upon

the seven bi-polar adjectives developed by Flynn. Additionally, the researcher wanted to









determine if these categories were relevant in lighting research as accurate measures on

which to judge lighting in contextual settings, as opposed to the a-contextual laboratory

settings in which Flynn conducted his research.

Lighting in College Dining Facilities

Lighting fixtures and placement help to create the ambience in active and profitable

restaurants. The following information provides empirical research that contributes to the

importance of lighting in dining facilities. Mahnke and Mahnke (1987) observed that in

order to provide good lighting to all customers, the space should not be too dim or too

bright. They add that while bright lights create arousing, stimulating environments, dim

lights create cozy, intimate surroundings. It is also essential to establish a sense of

personal space for patrons. Personal space comes from the placement of tables, as well

as the lighting over a tables' surface to illuminate, but not exceed the social boundary of

the patron. In high-end dining, bright overhead lighting can damage the feeling of

personal space, however it may be necessary in large spaces for encouraging social

interaction, such as in cafeterias and college dining facilities. Also, to promote privacy,

Mahnke and Mahnke (1987) add that in cafeterias and college dining facilities, the

serving line should be located away from the seating area so there is a physical separation

between serving and dining. Birren (1988) notes, in the food service industry, warm light

is essentially imperative. Warm, soft lighting has many functions, such as providing a

pleasant complexion to customers, creating a comfortable atmosphere, and enhancing the

feeling of physical warmth, thus promoting relaxation. Birren adds that successful

restaurants have been using bright floodlights during the noon hour rush, and a soft

diffused light to add warmth for evening diners. Bright fluorescent lights on one hand

attract customers into the establishment, and then out in a hurry; while incandescent soft









lighting creates a homelike atmosphere and invites relaxation, and thus encourages

spending from the patron.

Lighting

Light and the perception of light is not only a biological phenomenon, it also relies

heavily on the psychological. The amount of light an object reflects is said to be its

luminosity, while illuminance is the amount of light directed on an object or surface

(Gibson, 1979). Most objects are non-luminous; that is they do not give off light, and

they are only seen by the light of luminous objects, such as the sun or fire. However, Jay

(1967) notes that the luminance of a surface does not alone indicate how bright the

surface will appear to the eye. Ozturk (2003) emphasized that in order to achieve a

preferred luminance, three variables must be taken into consideration: the number of

luminaires, the luminous intensity distribution, and the placement of the luminaires. All

three variables are important to the current study because students were surveyed sitting

at dining tables, as well as the number, intensity, and placement of the luminaires.

Therefore, the luminous intensity of the tabletops was measured with a lightmeter in both

dining locations to determine differences in actual brightness. Additionally, lighting

plans of both facilities were constructed to account for the number and placement of

luminaires. Refer to Figures 3-2, and 3-4 for annotated lighting plans of both dining

facilities.

Light can affect physiological functioning, as well as mood, energy, and behavior

(Heerwagen & Heerwagen, 1986). Baron and Rea (1991) observe that peoples' moods

influence how they think as well as their behavior-lighting conditions influence mood-

and thus, lighting conditions, by changing peoples' moods, can influence many aspects of

their behavior and how they think. To test this further, Baron and Rea conducted an









empirical study where participants performed a wide range of tasks under one of several

different lighting conditions. The results indicated that lighting conditions do influence

participants' performance on all tasks completed. Additionally, research participants

rated low, warm illumination as more similar to lighting in homes and restaurants than

high, cool illumination as more similar to that in offices and hospitals. Thus, participants

were associating different lighting conditions with different locations or types of settings,

and most people would describe activities in homes and restaurants as more pleasant and

relaxed than those in offices or hospitals. However, Baron and Rea did not conduct this

research in a natural setting, and thus, the participants had to imagine themselves in all

given settings. Through this research, it is confirmed as Flynn (1973) suggested that

lighting conditions do much more than provide necessary levels of illumination for task

performance. Conclusively, it is important to design an aesthetic as well as functional

lighting system that affords for both the physical and psychological needs of a user.

Perception

Perception involves the pre-knowledge of things, it is individual, and there is no

way to know exactly how one person sees the same space as another person (Shapter,

1999). "The human visual system is a pattern seeker of enormous power and subtlety,"

says Few (2004), who studied how perception influences the way we process information

and make decisions (p. 33). Gibson (1979) makes a distinction that direct perception is

also a process of "picking up information" from the ambient array of light as opposed to

the physiological process of receiving information from the optical nerves (p. 147).

Flynn (1973) believed that users define space through a perceptual process of scanning

the space, activity, and tasks for patterns of information.









Visual perception is a continual process of receiving information about the physical

environment that is used to make conscious and subconscious judgments (Robson, 1999).

Robson empirically studied ambient factors and psychological principles in relation to a

quick turnover rate of customers in restaurants. One of the psychological factors she

studied is perception. Perception is a continual process of taking in information and

interpreting the environment to make conscious or subconscious decisions. This process

of perception includes taking in stimuli and sifting through it to retrieve the most

important information. Without this process of sifting, our brains would be overloaded

and not capable of focusing on anything else. Robson defines three distinct modes of

perception people shift between: (a) operational, or concentrating on elements that assist

in accomplishing a task, (b) responsive, or noticing things in the environment, and (c)

inferential, or focusing on things that support knowledge of an environment. From these

three modes of perception the most successful environments are determined that provide

information on all three levels.

The brain continuously scans the surrounding environment, taking "perceptual

inventory" for familiar cues that help determine which action is most appropriate

(Robson, 1999, p.2). For example, an activity, such as ordering food, or a concept such

as 'fine dining,' all relate strongly to something humans understand clearly.

Conclusively, environments that people can scan quickly and comprehend easily are the

ones in which people perform most successfully and efficiently. However, as exposure to

stimuli increases, the brain becomes uninterested and perception decreases. Conversely,

an overwhelming exposure to a certain stimuli may cause confusing or conflicting

messages in the brain, thereby leading to sensory overload. These concepts should be









understood when designing a space to provide enough stimulation to attract and stimulate

users to stay in an area, while providing a pleasant environment. The current study tests

these ideas because one dining setting consists of stimulating designs, lighting fixtures,

and even food choices, while the other dining setting does not contain many stimulating,

or arousing features. Therefore, this concept can be used to make inferences from the

data on how students perceive the lighting in their dining facility.

Apparent Brightness

One basic perceptual process, apparent brightness, has been the focus of much

research (Bernecker & Mier, 1985; Fotios, 2001; Flynn, 1973; Jay, 1967; Marsden, 1969;

Tiller & Veitch, 1995). Apparent brightness involves both the function of luminance and

the adaptation process through which users perceive the physical environment (Jay,

1967). Through his research in subjective lighting, Flynn consistently and repeatedly

concluded that apparent brightness was determined by the perceived intensity of light on

the horizontal plane (Tiller & Veitch, 1995). Current studies also reveal that apparent

brightness can also be influenced by light source color, lamp color, and luminances of

vertical surfaces, or a bright element in a luminaire. However, Tiller and Veitch

conclude that the distribution and intensity of light has a more significant effect on

perceived brightness than any other factors.

To test this, Tiller and Veitch (1995) conducted an empirical experiment, where

users had to adjust the brightness of one space until it matched the brightness of another

space. Two of the rooms utilized ambient uniform lighting, while two other rooms used a

less uniform lighting distribution. The results showed that in the control comparison, the

research participants matched the brightness of the two rooms consistently; however,

research participants became less accurate as the overall brightness was increased. In the









experimental comparisons, research participants were also consistent in matching the two

rooms; and it was found that the non-uniform luminance distribution appeared brighter

than the ambient uniform luminance distribution. Thus, rooms with non-uniform

luminance distribution appeared brighter to research participants than rooms with

uniform luminance distribution. Conclusively, between five and ten percent less

illuminance is required to achieve the same perception of brightness in a non-uniform

luminance distribution room as opposed to a uniform luminance distributed room.

Restaurants, hotels, bars, or clubs, commonly use subjective (non-uniform) lighting

distributions, and these spaces are thus more likely to appear brighter than a functional

(uniformly) lit room. Tiller and Veitchs' study is important to the current research

because one university dining space under study operates on primarily functional,

uniform lighting distributions, while the other university dining space uses a combination

of functional and subjective, non-uniform lighting distributions. However, Tiller and

Veitchs' study was conducted in an a-contextual experimental setting, while this study

was conducted in a contextual natural setting of college dining facilities. Therefore,

students did not have to imagine their surroundings when completing the survey and

generalized guidelines could be developed that are beneficial to designers seeking to

create a successful dining facility.

Biner and Butler (1989) hypothesized that lighting levels and social arrangements

both affect arousal. Arousal is defined in this context as a measure of how an

environment stimulates our perceptions (Robson, 1999). In Biner and Butler's empirical

study, when individuals maintain an optimal arousal level, then preferred lighting levels

for particular settings vary based on levels of social arrangements. Using a survey









approach, a list of common behaviors as well as where these behaviors occur; such as

eating occurs in a kitchen, was compiled. Next, the behaviors were cross tabulated with

three types of social arrangements: (1) performing the behavior in the setting with a

platonic friend, (2) performing the behavior with a romantic partner present, and (3)

performing the behavior with a group of friends. In the questionnaire each subject

responded on a scale from A (very bright) to D (very dark) for each behavior within each

social setting. Once again, the participants had to imagine themselves doing a particular

behavior, in a particular setting, under four different lighting conditions. Thus, having to

create all of these situations in one's mind may be difficult and unreliable. Biner and

Butler determined that brightness preferences were lower with romantic partners than

with a platonic friend or with a group of platonic friends. In addition, brightness

preferences between one friend and a group of friends depended on the specific activity.

As a result, the people you dine with can have as much of an effect on your dining

experience as the lighting systems alone. Therefore, the current study relates to this

information because students' preferences for dining in different social arrangements

were evaluated. Additionally, unlike Biner and Butler's study, this study was conducted

in the holistic setting of university dining facilities and thus the students did not have to

imagine dining in social situations. However, preferences for dining in different social

arrangements could only be tested with the existing lighting level in the dining setting.

Students were not asked to answer this question in relationship to each of the photographs

with varying lighting levels.

Subjective Research

The human visual system, what a user sees, is for the most part subjective entirely

within the mind. Thus, what a person sees is not precisely measurable. Semantic









differential scales are one of the most common methods used in collecting subjective

responses to lighting; and scales have been used as complementary techniques with other

data collection tools in the past (Houser & Tiller, 2003). In the 1950s, Osgood developed

the semantic differential scale as a tool for measuring word and concept meanings; and in

the 1970s Flynn was credited with applying the scale in his research on the subjective

aspects of lighting (Tiller, 1990).

The purpose of the semantic differential scale is to asses the meanings of two bi-

polar adjectives at the ends of a seven-step scale. It is important to note that the scale

yields quantitative data which reinforce verifiability because other researchers should be

able to apply the same set of scales to equal research participants and obtain essentially

similar results (Osgood, 1952). Osgood's scale is useful for determining subjective

meanings of words. Comfort, beautiful, and brightness have various significance and

different implications to people and the semantic differential scale can be used to

quantify these differences and gauge statistical significance. In this study, semantic

differential scales were used to determine the students' perceptions of four variations in

lighting levels in their dining facility.

One finding in current lighting research notes that the semantic scales are limited

unless they are used in a consistent fashion. Tiller and Rea (1991) recommend that

lighting be clearly identified as the stimulus to be judged. Tiller states, ". without an

explicit definition of lighting as the stimulus, there is no guarantee that different research

participants are evaluating the same stimulus, or even that the stimulus being evaluated

remains consistent for individual research participants over time" (p.61). A second

limitation provided by Tiller and Rea is that the bi-polar adjectives are not clearly defined









and are not related to the aspect of the environment under study. For example, if lighting

is the stimulus to be judged, the adjectives friendly/hostile would not fit in any category

because friendly/hostile does not describe lighting conditions. Bi-polar adjectives must

be carefully selected that relate to salient and scalable aspects of the lighting

environment. In the current study, the bi-polar adjectives fit into one of three categories

of impression determined by Flynn: evaluative, perceptual clarity, and spaciousness.

Flynn initially discovered these adjectives using a factor analysis to determine the most

valid dimensions for judging the subjective levels of lighting. A factor analysis in the

current study was not used to determine any adjectives due to the reliability of Flynn's

research. The semantic scale was judged on five points (very, quite, neither/nor, quite,

very), where the two extremes were located at opposite ends. In addition, each adjective

was randomized from positive to negative, or negative to positive. The students' setting

as well as four computer enhanced images depicting variations in lighting levels was

judged on each adjective.

In addition, Houser and Tiller (2003) advise that semantic differential scaling

should always be used in conjunction with a second or third method of data collection;

such converging operations assure a high degree of validity. Also, in order to avoid a

sequencing effect of responses by the research participants, the order of the bi-polar

adjectives should be randomized for each question. Triangulation was used for the data

collection, and the bi-polar adjectives were randomized to prevent participants from

hastily answering the questions. Additionally, this study was conducted in a natural

setting of two contrasting college dining facilities, one, a common fast food space, and

two, a residential dining space. One advantage of conducting this research in a natural









setting was that the researcher could provide a questionnaire to the students within the

dining setting; thus the students did not have to imagine their surroundings. Unlike

Flynns' a-contextual laboratory research, the current study was conducted in a contextual

setting, thus adding validity to the findings. Furthermore, there was minimal risk to the

students because they were in a comfortable, familiar atmosphere, and the observations

were not obtrusive or of a sensitive nature.

Computer Graphics

The use of computers as both a calculating and graphical tool in representing

spaces as well as lighting is constantly improving. Robert Davis (1986) argues "with

new technologies in three-dimensional graphics, it is now possible to produce a shaded

rendering of a space in a perspective view, giving a photograph-like image of a proposed

lighting environment (p.38). Furthermore, Davis and Bernecker (1984), found that

computer generated images are accurate representations of what an environment actually

looks like to the human eye. However, even without the use of computer-generated

images photographs continue to be a successful research tool in portraying a space to a

research participant. Stamps (1990) emphasizes that subject's responses to color

photographs and slides are similar to responses obtained from perceivers located at the

actual site where the photograph was taken. Also, Sheppard (1989) and Smardon et al.,

(1986) have proposed that a visual simulation must be easy to understand, credible,

accurate, unbiased, and representative.

In the current study, computer graphics are used as a tool to enhance the visual

representation of the dining spaces being studied. Color digital photographs were taken

of each dining space and the light levels were adjusted through the use of Adobe

Photoshop. The photographs were randomized in a booklet for the research participants









to use to complete the semantic differential scales. In addition, the research participants

were located in a natural setting, their dining facility, while looking at the photographs of

that facility and completing the questionnaire.

Summary

John Flynn, notable lighting researcher, focused on the psychological effects of

lighting. He hypothesized that there are consistent and shared patterns of impressions

among users of a space, as well as consistent changes in impression as the lighting in the

space is varied. Through his research he developed three categories of impressions that

people use in their perception of a space. Evaluative impressions are how people

perceive their environment based on emotions. Perceptual clarity impressions involve the

functional ways in which people perceive their space, and spaciousness impressions help

people to perceive their space in terms of its interior architecture. The current study

builds upon Flynn's research in testing university students' perceptions of lighting levels

in their space as well as four variations in lighting levels as depicted in computer

enhanced photographs.

Biner and Butler (1989) hypothesized that lighting levels and social arrangements

both affect arousal. Arousal is defined in this context as a measure of how an

environment stimulates our perceptions (Robson 1999). When individuals maintain an

optimal arousal level, then preferred lighting levels for particular settings should vary in

different social arrangements. The current study utilizes Biner and Butler's concept of

social arrangements, and tests students' preferences for dining in different types of social

arrangements with a friend, romantic partner, group of friends, and alone.














CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This exploratory, holistic study investigated college students' perceptions of

lighting in two contrasting on-campus University of Florida dining facilities: the

Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility. The students' perceptions

of lighting levels were measured through the use of semantic differential rating scales. In

addition, two open-ended questions about the student's positive and negative reactions

toward their dining facility were included. The students' preferences for dining in four

types of social arrangements were measured through the use of a Likert Scale.

This survey approach aimed to explore associations between variables, rather than

causal connections. As Marsden (1997) notes, a survey approach is especially useful for

descriptive studies dealing with unobservable things, such as peoples' thoughts, attitudes,

preferences, and feelings. This approach was appropriate for my study and contributed to

understanding how students perceived their given evening lighting atmosphere, how

students reacted to their dining facility, and with whom students preferred to dine.

Appendix A includes the four photographs used in the survey, a room finish schedule, a

furniture schedule, and a diagram of the observed frequency of occupied tables for the

Residential Dining facility. Appendix B includes the same information for the Fast Food

Dining facility.

Research Setting

A two stage process was used to select from a variety of University of Florida

campus dining facilities. First, all University of Florida dining facilities were taken into









consideration by the researcher. Second, the researcher selected two on-campus dining

facilities where the lighting levels and dining options were contrasting. Table 3-1

summarizes the two dining facilities used and some of their contrasting features.

Table 3-1 Features of Residential and Fast Food Dining Facilities.

Dining Date of
Facility Construction Lighting Design Food

Residential 2001 Subjective/Functional Circular Home-cooke

Fast Food 1967 Functional Orthogonal Fast Food


d


The Residential Dining facility was designed and constructed in 2001. See

Appendix A for room-finish and furniture schedules. University planners labeled it a

"residential dining center" because it includes upscale, authentic foods from around the

world, including a Mediterranean Kitchen, American Bistro, Gator Grille, Latin Flavors,

Vegan Corner and more (www.bsd.ufl.edu/dining). As seen in Figure 3-1, the floor plan

of this facility, an open circular kitchen is used, allowing students to see their food being

made, as well as affording for short lines with little waiting time. Another type of food

service being utilized in this facility is the food station. These are specific areas in a large

dining hall where different types of food are made, such as a pizza station, a grill station,

and a vegetarian station. The station concept is useful in achieving several goals. First,

students do not have to stand in one long, slow-moving line, rather they can move from

station to station to select just the food they want (Mattus, 2004). Second, there is more

opportunity to be creative in menu selection and cooking to order. This assures that there

will be something for everyone. Multiple stations break up the length of time students









have to wait for their food and it spreads high traffic areas around so no one line is too

long.


Figure 3-1 Floor Plan of Residential Dining Facility

Note. All tables shown were used in this study; tables that were not used are not shown
here.

Lastly, Figure 3-2 shows an annotated lighting plan of the Residential Dining

facility. It features functional and subjective lighting fixtures as color-coded by the

legend the track lighting is colored blue, the biax/fluorescents are colored green, and

the wall sconces are colored red. In the Residential Dining facility the subjective lighting










consists of wall sconces and track lighting, which highlights the different food stations.

The functional lighting is the biax/compact fluorescent lamps.



'--Subjective Lighting
Subjective Ughting
SFunctional Lighting





INCANDESCENT LAMPS
S2 FOOTa HIAX/COMPACT IFIUO-
RESCENT LAMPS

S0 1 TRACK LIGHTING








Figure 3-2 Lighting Plan of Residential Dining Facility

Note. Subjective lighting used is track lighting and wall sconces. Functional lighting
used is biax/compact fluorescents.

The building that houses the Fast Food Dining facility was designed and

constructed in 1967, and has been through numerous renovations since then. The food

court area has always served fast food, but the current vendors were added in 1996. See

Appendix B for room-finish and furniture schedules. Currently it serves fast-food from a

selection of popular establishments such as Wendy's, Sushi and Noodle Bar, Home Zone,

and Subway. Figure 3-3 shows the floor plan of the space, where fast food stations are

offered on one end of the dining facility, while seating utilizes the rest of the space

provided. Thus, in this facility long lines are likely to form at the most popular fast food

vendors during peak meal times. Additionally, students typically do not see their food









prepared in front of them nor do they interact with the chefs. In this facility, one size fits

all.


Figure 3-3 Floor Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility

Note. All tables shown were used in this study; tables that were not used are not shown
here.

Figure 3-4 shows the annotated lighting plan of the space and is color coded in the

legend to indicate the lighting fixtures used the track lighting is colored blue, the T8

and T12 compact fluorescents are colored orange, the soffits lighting is colored purple,

and the fans are colored cyan. In the Fast Food Dining facility, the subjective lighting is

used in the up-lit soffits, as well as track lighting around two of the fast-food vendors.











The functional lighting in this facility consists of T8 and T12 fluorescent lamps in the


fast-food vendors and compact fluorescent lamps recessed in dropped ceiling tiles with 3-


inch circular openings.









LIGHTING KEY
T 12 TB Compat Fluoreents
Trai Lghting
Soffits Up-Ughting
Ceiling Fan






Subjecive Ught[Rg
Figure 3-4FF. Lighting Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility
Functnnal Ughfirk
r- -1 - -
e S e fighting use is trc lighting u-lighti i sfts. ucti l
lig g ud is T/12 ad T/8 c tCling Ffluan

I' "AFF
LI I I I r-
L-L___ -_-_-_-____-J L--------J











Figure 3-4 Lighting Plan of Fast Food Dining Facility

Note. Subjective lighting used is track lighting and up-lighting in soffits. Functional
lighting used is T/12 and T/8 compact fluorescents.


The researcher focused on the food court space of the Fast Food Dining facility


because it offered primarily fast food establishments as opposed to residential dining


food. In addition, the cafeteria section of the Fast Food Dining facility differed from the









Residential Dining facility in that the layout, or design concept, was primarily on one

wall, while in the Residential Dining facility, an open, circular kitchen is utilized. Both

dining facilities differed in the color schemes, lighting installations, and fixtures.

Additionally, the service and layout of both facilities differ from one another, while still

offering several options to each individual student.

Participants

Research participants were constituted from a convenience sample of students who

frequented either the Residential Dining facility or the Fast Food Dining facility during

the period when data was collected. Anonymity and confidentiality was assured within

each dining facility to each participant. Fifty students from each dining facility were

invited to answer the survey. A total of 100 students were surveyed for the entire study.

The Residential Dining facility features only open and perimeter seating at tables, while

the Fast Food Dining facility features open tables, perimeter seating, and booths, and

bars. By considering both the table seating configurations and the facility lighting

systems, only the patrons seated at tables in an open central area were recruited. The

floor plans for both facilities in Figures 3-1 and 3-3 only show the central area tables that

were recruited for this study. Thus, for consistency between dining facilities, students

seated in booths, bars, and perimeter tables were not recruited.

Students involved in this study were asked to complete a short demographic

questionnaire on their year of birth, gender, how often they ate in the given dining hall on

a weekly basis, whether or not they had a meal plan, how much money they expected to

pay for a meal, how long they typically stayed, and finally, if they ate, socialized, studied,

or were involved in any other activity in addition to dining.









Year of Birth

Seventy-three percent (n=71) of the participants recruited from both facilities were

an average of 19 or 20 years of age at the time of questionnaire completion. Thus, the

majority of students in these dining facilities were under-graduate college students.

Gender

In the Residential Dining facility, the students recruited were 54% (n=27) female

and 46% (n=23) male. In the Fast Food Dining facility, 65.3% (n=32) of participants

were female, while 34.7% (n=17) of participants recruited were male.

Weekly Visits

A total of N=99 students completed the question on how often they attended their

given dining facility in a week. Students that reported to eating in their given dining

facility four or five times a week consist of 18% (n=9) from the Residential Dining

facility, and 36.7% (n=18) from the Fast Food Dining facility. Students that replied to

eating in their given dining hall more than five times a week consist of 54% (n=27) from

the Residential Dining facility, and 26.5% (n=13) from the Fast Food Dining facility.

Meal Plans

A total of N=99 students completed the yes or no question on whether or not they

use a meal plan to purchase their food. There were two types of meal plan memberships:

1) The All Campus Meal Plan and 2) The Regular Declining Balance account, in which

money is deducted from an account on the student ID card. In the Residential Dining

facility, over twice as many students or 68% (n=34) reported that they used a meal plan,

as students did in the Fast Food Dining facility 32.7% (n=16).









Expected Cost per Meal

A total of N=99 students completed the question on how much money they expect

to pay in one visit to their given dining facility. The students were given seven options

for their response that ranged from: $2.00 to $10.00 or more. The choice, $4.01-$6.00,

had the majority of responses: 36% (n=18) from the Residential Dining facility and

69.4% (n=34) from the Fast Food Dining facility. The option $6.01-$8.00 was also

chosen: 38% (n=19) from the Residential Dining facility and 20.4% (n=10) from the Fast

Food Dining facility. Thus, most students recruited from both dining facilities spend at

least $4.01, but no more than $8.00 per evening meal.

Length of Time Spent per Visit

A total of N=99 students completed the question on how much time they typically

spend during one visit to their given dining location. The students had five options that

ranged from 15 minutes or less, to over 2 hours. In the Residential Dining facility, the

majority of participants, 64% (n=32) selected 16-30 minutes. The majority of students

from the Fast Food Dining facility 51% (n=25) stayed between 31-60 minutes.

Activities

A total of N=99 students completed one question with a series of four responses on

whether or not they attended the given dining facility to eat, socialize, study, or partake in

another activity. All students from both the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food

Dining facility responded positively 100% (n=99) to eating in their given dining facility.

It should be noted that all students that enter the Residential Dining facility must pay at

the entrance before they were allowed access.

The largest percentage of students from both facilities also responded positively to

socializing in their environment. A total of 80% (n=40) of the participants from the









Residential Dining facility and 87.8% (n=43) of the participants from the Fast Food

Dining facility agreed to socializing. However, the researcher notes that socialization

may be more likely to be a property of the students than a property of the space. In

response to studying, only 28% (n=14) of students from the Residential Dining facility

replied positively, while a slightly larger percentage of students, 55.1% (n=27) from the

Fast Food Dining facility agreed that they use the space to study. Finally, the largest

percentage of students from both dining halls did not respond to participating in any other

activities: 92% (n=46) from the Residential Dining facility and 81.6% (n=40) from the

Fast Food Dining facility. Those students were given space to write in what other

activities they participated in while dining in their given facility.

Procedures and Instruments

This study was conducted over a four-week period. Questionnaires were

distributed Monday, January 10th, 2005 to Friday February 4th, 2005 during the two hours

between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The researcher collected data by five different means:

1) pre-study observations 2) a short demographics questionnaire to collect the students'

background information, 3) Osgood's Semantic Differential scale to measure students'

subjective perceptions of the lighting levels, 4) two open-ended questions for the students

to qualitatively clarify their positive and negative reactions toward their dining facility,

and finally 5) a Likert Scale to measure students' preferences for dining in four types of

social arrangements (See Appendix C for the full questionnaire). The pre-study

observations, the demographics questionnaire, and the two open-ended questions were

developed locally by the researcher. The semantic differential scale, the bi-polar

adjectives, and the categories of impression determined by Flynn (1973) were adopted for

this research. Additionally, the Likert scale was adopted from Biner and Butler (1987,









1989) and was used to determine the four social arrangements for which the students'

preferences were measured.

The researcher gained permission for the study from Jill Rodriguez, Marketing

Program Manager for Aramark, which is the food provider for University of Florida

Gator Dining facilities. The Residential Dining facility required payment to enter, thus

the researcher needed approval from the management of the Residential Dining facility.

Approval was not needed from management in the Fast Food Dining facility because it

was public and charged no entrance fee. After the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

approved the project, the researcher began her data collection (See Appendix D for IRB

Informed Consent Form). A timeline for the project is summarized below.

Week One -Residential Dining Facility

This phase entailed observing students':

Recorded range of activities, length of stay, which tables were occupied, and how

many people were generally in a party.

Week Two Fast Food Dining Facility

This phase entailed observing students':

Recorded range of activities, length of stay, which tables were occupied, and how

many people were generally in a party.

Week Three -Residential Dining Facility

This phase entailed distributing the questionnaire to 50 willing students to

determine:

1. Students' perceptions of lighting in their space as well as four computer

enhanced images of lighting level variations.









2. Students' positive and negative reactions to their dining facility

3. Students' preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements.

Week Four -Fast Food Dining Facility

This phase entailed distributing the questionnaire to 50 willing students to

determine:

1. Students' perceptions of lighting in their space as well as four computer

enhanced images of lighting level variations.

2. Students' positive and negative reactions to their dining facility

3. Students' preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements.

Physical Data Collection in the Setting

Data Collection Prior to the Formal Study

Lighting levels. Prior to the behavioral observations, lighting levels on the table

tops were recorded by using a lightmeter to measures footcandles. Luminous intensity is

measured and reported in footcandles (fc). One footcandle is equal to the total intensity

of light that falls on a one square foot surface that is one foot away from the point source

of the light (www.iesna.org 1999). As determined by the IESNA Lighting Handbook, 8th

edition, the recommended light level for task area dining is 15 footcandles, while the

recommended light level for general area dining is 10 footcandles (www.iesna.org 1999).

Footcandle levels on the table tops were measured in each dining facility. In the

Residential Dining facility, the footcandle level measured 11 fc. on the table top, and in

the Fast Food Dining facility, the footcandle level measured 10 f.c. on the table top, and

thus there is not a large difference between the amounts of light reflected off of these

surfaces. The researcher contacted Clint Robinson from the University of Florida

Facilities Planning and Construction Office to obtain lighting plans for both dining









facilities. Pat Day, the Maintenance Supervisor for the Fast Food Dining facility, also

assisted the researcher in providing information on the lighting fixtures.

Digital photographs. The researcher used a digital camera to take photographs of

both dining facilities at the same time of night when sunlight would not be a factor in the

images. Each photograph was taken of one perspective in each dining facility, and the

lighting was adjusted through the use of Adobe Photoshop to yield four variations in light

levels of the original image. These adjustments were calibrated by modifying the

brightness/contrast option. The categories of variation included "very dim (-50)," "dim

(-25)," "bright (+50)," and "very bright (+100)." These categories were developed from

Biner and Butlers' (1989) study that tested subjects' responses to lighting on a scale from

A (very bright) to D (very dark) for a specific behavior within different social settings.

See Appendix A for the four lighting level variations in the Residential Dining facility.

See Appendix B for the four lighting level variations in the Fast Food Dining facility.

The researcher created two booklets containing four photographs of the Residential

Dining facility, and four photographs of the Fast Food Dining facility. In total, four

booklets of each dining facility were made for the purpose of efficiency, as well as

several students eating with more than one person. The photographs in the booklet were

the same perspective view in every picture, with the only variation being the lighting

level. However, the photographs were randomly placed in the booklets to eliminate

copying between students. Also, the photographs were randomized to prevent an

ordering sequence effect from very bright to very dim or vice versa.

In the Residential Dining facility, the photograph that most similarly resembles the

actual space at this evening hour was the image labeled "dim," (See Appendix A) and in









the Fast Food facility the photograph that most similarly resembles the space at the same

time of night was also the "dim" image (See Appendix B). Four variations in the given

light levels were created to determine the strongest response of the students to their most

preferred lighting levels based upon the seven bi-polar adjectives.

Pre-study observations. As noted above, observations lasted one week for each

dining facility. The pre-study observations provided a basis for understanding the

students' behavior prior to distribution of the questionnaires. Additionally, the features

that the researcher observed helped to construct the questionnaire used in the formal

study. See Appendix A for the Residential Dining facilities' seating configuration. See

Appendix B for the Fast Food Dining facilities' seating configuration.

Each student the researcher observed was given a number when they sat down at a

table. Next, the researcher observed the students and recorded how many people were in

the party, which table was occupied according to the number on the floor plan, and how

long the students stayed at the table. Additionally, the researcher recorded whether or not

the students studied, ate, talked, or participated in any other activity. The number of

people in a party, as well as how long the students stayed in the facility helped the

researcher to develop the demographic portion of the questionnaire.

In the Residential Dining facility the researcher observed alone, however, in the

Fast Food Dining facility the researcher utilized an assistant to help observe students due

to the vast size of the space. The researcher sat at a different table each night, and was

seated at a table in the corner to provide maximum viewing. The researcher also brought

books and a notepad to resemble studying.









The amount of time the students in the Residential Dining facility remained at one

table ranged from 5 minutes to 112 minutes with a mean of 32.34 minutes. The amount

of time the students in the Fast Food Dining facility stayed at a table ranged from 2

minutes to 112 minutes with a mean of 24.96 minutes.

In the Residential Dining facility, 98% (n=49) of students who were observed were

not studying, while in the Fast Food Dining facility, 78% (n=39) of students observed

were not studying. In the Residential Dining facility, 98% (n=49) of students observed

were eating, while in the Fast Food Dining facility, 94% (n=47) of students were also

eating. In the Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility, 50% (n=25)

of students observed talked to others. Lastly, in the Residential Dining facility, 100%

(n=50) of students did not participate in any other activity, while in the Fast Food Dining

facility, 88% (n=44) of students observed did not participate in any other activity. Other

activities included listening to headphones, reading magazines, attending group meetings,

or talking on a cellular phone.

Data Collection during the Formal Study

In the Fast Food Dining facility, the researcher was assisted by another person to

recruit students to complete the questionnaire. The assistant was located on the opposite

side of the Fast Food Dining facility, so as to not approach any students already

approached by the researcher. An assistant was not needed during data collection in the

Residential Dining facility.

Semantic differential scale. The researcher explained to the students that lighting

in the dining facility was being studied. The students rated their perception of the

lighting in their actual dining facility before judgments were made of the photographs.









The students then stated their perceptions of the lighting levels in the four computer-

enhanced photographs using seven bi-polar adjective scales.

Figure 3-5 shows the design of the study with two groups of students that were

chosen from the residential (subjective and functional lighting) and fast-food (functional

lighting) college dining facilities. The students evaluated these four photographs based

upon the bi-polar adjectives developed by Flynn, and are outlined under each category of

impression (Dislike/Like, Unpleasant/Pleasant, Visually Cool/Visually Warm,

Hazy/Clear, Dim/Bright, Blurry/Focused, and Confined/Spacious).


Group 1 College Dining Facilities Group 2



Residential Dining Fast Food Dining
(Subjective and (Functional
Functional Lighting) Lighting)


Very Bright Dim Very Very Bright Dim Very
Bright __ Dim Bright __ Dim


Bi-Polar Adjectives
Developed by Flynn
Evaluative:
Dislike/Like
Unpleasant/Pleasant
Visually
Cool/Visually Warm
Perceptual Clarity:
Hazy/Clear
Dim/Bright
Blurry/Focused
Spaciousness:
Confined/Spacious

Figure 3-5 Diagram of Research Design Using a Semantic Differential Scale.









Open-ended questions. Two open-ended questions about the students'

preferences for the dining space were also included. The researcher chose to use open-

ended questions because there were several possible answers to these two questions, and

the researcher wanted to avoid suggesting answers. Additionally, the researcher wanted

the students' own words to be used in order to clarify how they felt about the space as

well as aspects they would change. Also, open-ended questions determine the salience of

an issue. Sommer and Sommer (2002) add that when answering an open-ended question,

the items that stand out in a person's mind will be mentioned first. The researcher

analyzed students' open responses using a domain analysis, which determines common

categorical variables in each student's data. This was completed by reading the subjects'

responses and finding a cover or overall term, which encompasses what the subject was

trying to convey. Next, all of the cover terms were organized into common themes and

hierarchically ordered from the most frequently responded items to the least. These cover

terms were then categorized into larger common themes such as positive and negative

characteristics of each dining facility.

Likert scale. The Likert scale portion of the questionnaire studied the subjects'

preference for dining in social arrangements. The students were instructed to rate their

preference for dining in four different social arrangements based upon the space they

were in on a scale from one (never) to five (very often). The students did not refer to the

four photographs, but used their own judgment based on being in the space at the time the

questionnaire was distributed. The social arrangements being studied were 1) dining with

a friend, 2) dining with a romantic partner, and 3) dining with a group of friends, and 4)

dining alone. This question sought to determine if either dining facility was more









successful in promoting atmospheres for students who preferred to dine alone, with a

friend or groups of friends, or with a romantic partner.

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis techniques were used on the semantic differential scale, the

Likert social scale, the pre-study observations, and the demographics portion of the

survey to compare the results of the two dining facilities to determine significant

associations. Cross-tabulations were first conducted on the semantic differential scale to

determine the students' majority of responses in relation to their perception of lighting

based on the bi-polar adjectives. A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was

used because there was more than one dependent variable. MANOVA' S were conducted

on the semantic differential scale to determine if the dining facility, the lighting, and the

interaction of the dining facility and lighting had statistical significance on students'

perception of lighting in their space. The two open-ended questions were analyzed using

descriptive statistics to determine basic data, such as the means or averages of responses.

Lastly, cross-tabulations and a MANOVA were also conducted on the students'

preferences for dining in types of social arrangements. All statistical analysis was

completed using "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" (SPSS) 12.0.














CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS

Students' Perception of Lighting Level Variations

Do students who dine in the Residential Diningfacility lit n i/h a combination of

functional and subjective lighting-express a significantly greater preference for lighting

in this setting than those students who dine in the Fast Food Diningfacility lit

predominantly i ilh functional lighting?

Students judged the lighting in their space as well as the four computer enhanced

photographs of lighting level variations. The following five cross-tabulations provide

descriptive numerical data that shows students perceptions of lighting in their space as

well as the four variations and is broken down by each bi-polar adjective. The yellow

highlighting are the highest responded to items by the students. A five point semantic

differential scale was used to rate the lighting based on seven bi-polar adjectives. Table

4-1 demonstrates the differences between students' responses in the two contrasting

dining facilities based on perceptions of lighting in their space.

Table 4-1 shows that the students from the Residential Dining facility had mostly

consistent positive responses about the lighting in their space based upon the seven bi-

polar adjectives used. In the Fast Food Dining facility, the students' responses were

inconsistent about the lighting in their space based upon the seven bi-polar adjectives.

Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 are summarized below.









Table 4-1 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Actual
Space.


Residential Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite
1 (2%) 4 (8%)

2(4%) 4(8%)

2(4%) 12(24%)

3 (6%) 15(30%)

2(4%) 9(18%)

1(2%) 10(20%)

0 (0%) 3 (6%)


Neither/Nor
12 (24%)

12 (24%)

13 (26%)

4(8%)

18(36%)

15 30%)

10 (20%)


Fast Food Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool- Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very
1 (2%)

0 (0%)

3(6.1%)

4(8.2%)

4(8.2%)

2(4.1%)

4(8.2%)


3uite
12 (24.5%)

10(20.4%)

12 (24.5%)

13 (26.5%)

20 (40.8%)

12 (24.5%)

6(12.2%)


Neither/Nor
20 (40.8%)

21 (42.9%)

14 (28.6%)

13 (26.5%)

9(18.4%)

21 (42.9%)

20 (40.8%)


Quite
16 (32.7%)

18(36.7%)

19(38.8%)

13 (26.5%)

13 (26.5%)

12 (24.5%)

16(32.7%)


Quite
25 (50%)

26 (52%)

21 (42%)

20 (40%)

12 (24%)

20 (40%)

22 (44%)


Very
8 (16%)

6 (12%)

2 (4%)

8 (16%)

9(18%)

4 (8%)

15 (30%)


Very
0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

6 (12.2%)

3 (6.1%)

2(4.1%)

3 (6.1%)


Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49.
Highlighted items are students' majority of responses.









Table 4-2 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Bright
Image.


Residential Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite
16 (32%) 17 (34%)

10 (20%) 19 (38%)

4 (8%) 12 (24%)

20 (40%) 19 (38%)

1 (2% 3 (6%)

10 (20%) 25 (50%)

0 (0%) 6 (12%)


Neither/Nor
8 (16%)

11 (22%)

16(32%)

6 (12%)

3 (6%)

10 (20%)

16 (32%)


Fast Food Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite
9 (18.4%) 23 (46.9%)

6 (12.2%) 23 (46.9%)

4 (8.2%) 11 (22.4%)

10 (20.4%) 23 (46.9%)

1 (2%) 4 (8.2%)

8 (16.3%) 19 (38.8%)

3 (6.1%) 3 (6.1%)


Neither/Nor
8 (16.3%)

11 (22.4%)

15(30.6%)

6 (12.2%)

4 (8.2%)

11 (22.4%)

13 (26.5%)


Quite Very
7 (14.3%) 2 (4.1%)

8 (16.3%) 1 (2%)

16(32.7%) 3 (6.1%)

4 (8.2%) 6 (12.2%)

16 (32.7%) 24 (49%)

6 (12.2%) 5 (10.2%)

22 (44.9%) 8 (16.3%)


Quite
7 (14%)

8 (16%)

12 (24%)

3 (6%)

11 (22%)

5 (10%)

23 (46%)


Very
2 (4%)

2 (4%)

6 (12%)

2 (4%)

32 (64%)

0 (0%)

5 (10%)


Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49.
Highlighted items are students' majority of responses.









Table 4-3 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Bright
Image.


Residential Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite Neither/Nor
1 (2%) 4 (8%) 13 (26%)

0 (0%) 3 (6%) 14 (28%)

1 (2%) 12 (24%) 12 (24%)

1(2%) 7 (14%) 8 (16%)

3 (6%) 14 (28%) 7 (14%)

1(2%) 7 (14%) 8 (16%)

1 (2%) 12 (24%) 10 (20%)


Fast Food Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite Neither/Nor
1 (2%) 11 (22.4%) 10 (20.4%)

1 (2%) 1 (22.4%) 12 (24.5%)

3 (6.1%) 6 (12.2%) 19 (38.8%)

4 (8.2%) 10 (20.4%) 10 (20.4%)

6 (12.2%) 16 (32.7%) 11 (22.4%)

0 (0%) 10(20.4%) 11(22.4%)

1 (2%) 11 (22.4%) 19 (38.8%)


Quite
18(36.7%)

20 (40.8%)

17 (34.7%)

19(38.8%)

14 (28.6%)

21 (42.9%)

13 (26.5%)


Quite
28 (56%)

29 (58%)

22 (42%)

24 (48%)

25 (50%)

29 (58%)

21 (42%)


Very
4 (8%)

4 (8%)

3 (6%)

10 (20%)

1 (2%)

5 (10%)

6 (12%)


Very
9(18.4%)

5 (10.2%)

4 (8.2%)

6 (12.2%)

2(4.1%)

7 (14.3%)

5 (10.2%)


Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49.
Highlighted items are students' majority of responses.










Table 4-4 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Dim Image.

Residential Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite
0(0%) 18(36%)

1 (2%) 16 (32%)

4(8%) 19(38%)

3 (6%) 16(32%)

11 (22%) 30 (60%)

0 (0%) 9 (18%)

3 (6%) 15 (30%)


Neither/Nor
12 (24%)

11 (22%)

14 (28%)

15 (30%)

7 (14%)

17(34%)

19(38%)


Fast Food Dining


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Perception

Very Quite Neither/Nor
12 (24.5%) 20 (40.8%) 6 (12.2%)

8 (16.3%) 31 (63.3%) 5 (10.2%)

7 (14.3%) 16 (32.7%) 18(36.7%)

7 (14.3%) 21 (42.9%) 9 (18.4%)

30 (61.2%) 13 (26.5%) 4 (8.2%)

4 (8.2%) 14 (28.6%) 13 (26.5%)

6 (12.2%) 18 (36.7%) 14(28.6%)


Quite
10 (20.4%)

3 (6.1%)

6 (12.2)

12 (24.5%)

1 (2%)

15(30.6%)

9(18.4%)


Quite
15 (30%)

20 (40%)

10(20%)

13 (26%)

2 (4%)

20 (40%)

12 (24%)


Very
5 (10%)

2 (4%)

3 (6%)

3 (6%)

0 (0%)

4 (8%)

1 (2%)


Very
1 (2%)

2(4.1%)

2(4.1%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

3 (6.1%)

2(4.1%)


Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49.
Highlighted items are students' majority of responses.









Table 4-2 summarizes the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities

based on the students' perception of lighting in the image, very bright. Both groups of

students rated the image positively in terms of very bright and quite spacious. The

remaining five adjectives were rated overall negatively.

Table 4-3 describes the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities

based on the students' perception of the lighting in the photograph, bright. The students

from the Residential Dining facility had consistently positive responses for all possible

lighting levels. The students from the Fast Food Dining facility had inconsistent

responses across the seven bi-polar adjectives.

Table 4-4 illustrates the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities

based on the students' perception of the lighting in the image, dim. Both groups of

students rated this space more negatively than positively. However, as seen in Figure 4-

1, the image "dim" most closely represents the lighting level in the actual residential

space. Furthermore, as seen in Figure 4-2, the image "dim" most closely represents the

lighting level in the actual fast food dining space.

Table 4-5 shows the cross-tabulation of the two contrasting dining facilities based

on the students' perception of the lighting in the photograph, very dim. The students in

the Residential Dining facility had almost all negative responses, while the students in the

Fast Food Dining facility had entirely consistent negative responses to this lighting level.

A MANOVA was conducted, with the Wilks' Lambda test statistic used to

determine significance. The advantage of using a MANOVA is that it tests for

significance with multiple dependent variables; in this study there are seven bi-polar

adjectives. The significance level was set at .05. As shown in Table 4-6, the MANOVA

















































Figure 4-1 Actual Image (Top) Compared to "Dim" Image (Bottom) of the Residential
Dining Facility.




















































Figure 4-2 Actual Image (Top) Compared to "Dim" Image (Bottom) of the Fast Food
Dining Facility.










Table 4-5 Cross-Tabulation of Students' Perception of Lighting Levels in the Very Dim
Image.


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Residential Dining

Perception

Very Quite Neit
22 (44%) 19 (38%) 3 (6'

16 (32%) 21 (42%) 7(1

11(22%) 10(20%) 19(:

14 (28%) 22 (44%) 10 (

44 (88%) 3 (6%) 1(2'

7(14%) 17(34%) 15 (

13 (26%) 19 (38%) 12 (


Bi-Polar Adjectives


Dislike-Like

Unpleasant-Pleasant

Cool-Warm

Hazy-Clear

Dim-Bright

Blurry-Focused

Confined-Spacious


Fast Food Dining

Perception

Very Quite
34 (69.4%) 8 (16.3%)

29 (59.2%) 15 (30.6%)

19 (38.8%) 6 (12.2%)

24 (49%) 14 (28.6%)

45 (91.8%) 3 (6.1%)

17 (34.7%) 14 (28.6%)

21 (42.9%) 11 (22.4%)


Neither/Nor
4 (8.2%)

2(4.1%)

18(36.7%)

8 (16.3%)

1 (2%)

9(18.4%)

11 (22.4%)


her/Nor
%o)

4%)

38%)

10%)

o%)

30%)

24%)


Quite
5 (10%)

6 (12%)

7 (14%)

3 (6%)

1 (2%)

8 (16%)

4 (8%)


Very
1 (2%)

0 (0%)

3 (6%)

1 (2%)

1 (2%)

3 (6%)

2 (4%)


Quite
2(4.1%)

3 (6.1%)

4 (8.2%)

2(4.1%)

0 (0%)

5 (10.2%)

4 (8.2%)


Very
1 (2%)

0 (0%)

2(4.1%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

4(8.2%)

2(4.1%)


Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49.
Highlighted items are students' majority of responses.









statistical analysis revealed that the dining facility had a significant effect on how the

space was perceived by the students F(7, 479) = 5.41, p < .05. In addition, the five

different lighting level conditions had a significant effect on how the space was perceived

by the students F(28, 1728.48) = 30.53, p < .05. Lastly, the interaction between the

dining facility and lighting levels also had a significant effect on how the students

perceived their space F(28, 1728.48) = 1.52, p < .05. Thus, the statistical significance

found here supports the validity of the cross-tabulation data on the students' perceptions

of the lighting level in their dining facility.

Table 4-6 MANOVA of Students' Perception of their Space.

Value F df p

Dining Facility .927 5.410 7 *.000

Lighting .235 30.528 28 *.000

Interaction** .916 1.516 28 *.041

Note. = Significance, p<.05.
** = Interaction of the dining facility and the lighting combined.
To further study the significance, the researcher conducted a between-subjects

MANOVA that tested the specific variables of the seven bi-polar adjectives. Table 4-7

illustrates the significance levels for the dining facilities' affect on how the students

perceived their space. Thus, the adjectives dislike/like F(1, 15.76) = 15.35, p < .05,

unpleasant/pleasant F(1, 23.20) = 26.74, p < .05, dim/bright F(1, 13.49) = 15.16, p < .05,

and confined/spacious F(1, 8.70) = 8.65, p < .05 were all significant to how the students

perceived their space. Table 4-8 shows the significance level for the lighting levels'

affect on how the students perceived their space. In this table, all bi-polar adjectives had

a significant affect on how the students perceived their space F(4, 56.45) = 54.98, p <









.05, F(4, 47.97) = 55.29, p < .05, F(4, 11.63) = 10.37, p < .05, F(4, 40.82) = 33.95, p <

.05, F(4, 146.36) = 164.50, p < .05, F(4, 24.41) = 23.09, p < .05, F(4, 35.97) = 35.75, p <

.05. Lastly, Table 4-9 shows the significance level for the interaction of the dining

facility and the lighting levels' affect on how the students perceived their space. Now,

the adjectives dislike/like F(4, 3.64) = 3.54, p < .05, unpleasant/pleasant F(4, 2.97) =

3.43, p < .05, hazy/clear F(4, 3.57) = 2.97, p < .05, blurry/focused F(4, 2.86) = 2.70, p <

.05, and confined/spacious F(4, 2.62) = 2.60, p < .05 all affect how the students perceived

their space.

Table 4-7 MANOVA of Dining Facilities' Affect on Students' Perception of their Space.

Between- Subjects

Sum of Squares F df p

Bi-Polar Adjectives

Dislike/Like 15.76 15.35 1 *.000

Unpleasant/Pleasant 23.20 26.74 1 *.000

Cool/Warm 2.39 2.13 1 .145

Hazy/Clear 3.64 3.02 1 .083

Dim/Bright 13.49 15.16 1 *.000

Blurry/Focused 2.95 2.79 1 .095

Confined/Spacious 8.70 8.65 1 *.003

Note. = Significance, p<.05.









Table 4-8 MANOVA of Lightings Levels' Affect on Students' Perception of their Space.
Between- Subjects

Sum of Squares F df p

Bi-Polar Adjectives

Dislike/Like 225.79 54.98 4 *.000

Unpleasant/Pleasant 191.89 55.29 4 *.000

Cool/Warm 46.52 10.37 4 *.000

Hazy/Clear 163.29 33.95 4 *.000

Dim/Bright 585.43 164.50 4 *.000

Blurry/Focused 97.63 23.09 4 *.000

Confined/Spacious 143.90 35.75 4 *.000

Note. = Significance, p<.05.

Table 4-9 MANOVA of Interaction of Dining Facilities' and Lightings' Affect on
Students' Perception of their Space.
Between-Subjects

Sum of Squares F df R

Bi-Polar Adjectives

Dislike/Like 14.54 3.54 4 *.007

Unpleasant/Pleasant 11.89 3.43 4 *.009

Cool/Warm 1.96 .44 4 .782

Hazy/Clear 14.28 2.97 4 *.019

Dim/Bright 2.41 .68 4 .609

Blurry/Focused 11.42 2.70 4 *.030

Confined/Spacious 10.48 2.60 4 *.035

Note. = Significance, p<.05.









The findings suggest that the combination of successful functional and subjective

lighting systems used in the Residential Dining facility had a positive affect on how the

students perceived their space, and as well, elicited consistent shared impressions and

shared changes in impressions as the lighting in the space was varied. While functional

and subjective lighting was also used in the Fast Food Dining facility, the unsuccessful

installations and fixtures contributed to the fact that the students did not share their

impressions of the lighting in their space, as well as did not share changes in their

perception of the space as the lighting level was varied.

Students' Positive and Negative Responses toward their Dining Facility

Do students who dine in the Residential Diningfacility n i/th an open kitchen and

enhanced food choices-express a higher preference score for their overall dining

experience than students in the Fast Food Diningfi/ ilily n i//h a closed kitchen and

limited food choices?

This portion of the questionnaire consisted of two open-ended questions about the

students positive and negative reactions toward their dining facility. The dependent

variables included the students' responses, and the independent variables were the two

contrasting dining facilities. In the Residential Dining facility, students had 193

responses with a 60% positive response, and a 40% negative response. In the Fast Food

Dining facility, the students had 168 responses, with a 44% positive response, and a 56%

negative response.

Residential Dining Facility

In analyses of the responses from the students from the Residential Dining

facility, the researcher first read and recorded all written responses, and then categorized

these into cover terms, which signify an overall meaning of a category. The Residential









Dining facility received a total of n=115 positive responses, and a total of n=78 negative

responses. Table 4-10 outlines the top four responses (food, spaciousness, design,

lighting) and all other responses were categorized under the term, "other." The items that

are in the "other" category include music, staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color

scheme, temperature, and social qualities.

Table 4-10 Open-Ended Responses from the Residential Dining Facility Students.

Positive Negative

Food Setup/Selection 27%, n=31 Food Setup/Selection 28%, n=22
Spaciousness 14%, n=16 Lighting 17%, n=13
Design 14%, n=16 Design 15%, n=12
Lighting 10%, n=ll Spaciousness 9%, n=7
Other 35%, n=40 Other 31%, n=24

Total= 100%, N=114 100%, N=78
Note. Other includes music, staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature,
and social qualities. The term, location, had the third largest response; however, it was
dropped from the data because only interior variables are being considered for this study.

Positive responses. The terms used for positive responses for the Residential

Dining facility were organized from the most reaction to the least reaction. The four

highest responses are outlined here.

The term, food setup/selection received the most responses (27%, n=31). Some

examples of students' positive reactions were towards the variety of foods, the flow-

specifically the round serving area, all you can eat dining, and the easy access to the food.

Spaciousness had the second largest responses (14%, n=16); and the positive comments

included the overall spaciousness, the open feeling, and ample seating. One student

wrote that he liked the design of a "space within a space," referring to the traffic area

separate from the seating area, which is separate from the ordering area. The design of

the space also had the second largest response (14%, n=16). The students positively









responded to the layout of the space, the separation between food service and seating, the

open kitchen, and the modem, comfortable decor. The lighting in the dining hall had the

fourth largest response (9%, n=10). The students' responses were optimistic towards the

right amount of light used (intensity) and the diverse selection of lighting fixtures.

Students commented that the lighting is "very open and bright" and it "doesn't look

gloomy." One student wrote that the lighting was "very spatial" and that they liked the

"different fuses of lighting in different orientations."

Negative responses. The terms used for the negative responses for the Residential

Dining facility were also organized from the most frequent to the least frequent. The four

highest responses are outlined here.

Notably, while the most positive responses from the Residential Dining facility

were reactions to the food setup/selection, the most negative responses were also to the

food setup/selection (28%, n=22). The students reported that they would like more focus

on the food selection or variety, healthier balanced food, better quality food, and easier

access to the food. Lighting was the item with the highest negative response (17%,

n=13). The students were split between the lighting needing to be brighter, and the

lighting being too bright. One student wrote that the lighting needs to be "a little brighter

with more focus on the food than the interior decoration." Other students responded

negatively to the fluorescent fixtures, the glare, a need for more perimeter lighting, as

well as more intimate sources of lighting. This split between the students' preferences

for the lighting being too dim or too bright may be caused by the different activities

students participate in while dining. For example, some students may want to study and









thus would need a higher level of illumination, while other students may want to dine in a

more intimate environment, which would be supported by low levels of illumination.

The design of the facility also had the third largest negative responses (15%, n=12)

as it did positive responses. The students reported that the space was not comfortable, the

tables were laid out too sporadically, it had a cold, factory look, and it had an overall very

busy, cluttered look. The spaciousness was responded to negatively as well (9%, n=7).

The students wrote that more tables are needed and that the space often is crowded during

peak hours. Interpretations of these results as well as generalized guidelines for designers

will be discussed in chapter five.

Fast Food Dining Facility

In analyses of the responses from the students of the Fast Food Dining facility,

the researcher first read and recorded all written responses, and then categorized them

into terms. The Fast Food Dining facility received a total of n=74 positive responses, and

n=94 negative responses. Table 4-11 outlines the top four responses and all other

responses were categorized under the term, "other." The top four positive responses are

spaciousness, food, social qualities and music, while the top four negative responses are

spaciousness, lighting, design, and food. The items that are in the "other" category

include staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and studying.

Positive responses. The terms used for the positive responses for the Fast Food

Dining facility were organized from the most reaction to the least reaction. The four

highest responses are outlined here.

The most frequent term used, spaciousness, (31%, n=23) was positively received in

terms of openness, abundance of seating, accessibility, and large tables. A response from

one student was that it had "ample seats" it was "spread out" and there was a "clever









Table 4-11 Open-Ended Responses from the Fast Food Dining Facility Students.

Positive Negative

Spaciousness 31%, n=23 Spaciousness 30%, n=28
Food Setup/Selection 15%, n=ll Lighting 17%, n=16
Social Qualities 14%, n=10 Design 16%, n=15
Music 8%, n=6 Food Setup/Selection 11%, n=9
Other 32%, n=23 Other 26%, n=24

Total= 100%, N=73 100%, N=92

Note. Other includes staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and
studying. The term, location, had the second largest response; however, it was dropped
from the data because only interior variables are being considered for this study.

utilization of the space." Next, the food setup/selection (15%, n= 1) was received well in

terms of the food vendors, as well as the different varieties of food stations offered. The

social qualities of the space were also highly received (14%, n=10) by the students in

reaction to the friendly environment and the constant movement or flow of people. One

student commented that they liked the "mutual ground between students and teachers."

Negative responses. The terms used for the negative responses for the Fast Food

Dining facility were also organized from the most reaction to the least reaction. The four

highest responses are outlined here.

In addition to the term spaciousness having the most positive responses from the

students, spaciousness also had the majority of negative responses from the students

(30%, n=28). The students reported that there needed to be more space between the

tables, it was too crowded at meal times, there should be more tables overall, and the

dining area should be expanded. The next term, lighting, had several negative responses

(17%, n=16). The largest percentage of students felt the lighting conditions in the space

were too harsh and glaring. One student commented that the lighting was "too bright to









bring a romantic partner." Additionally, they believed that there should be bright, white

lights, as opposed to the dim fluorescent lighting currently in use. Also, several students

responded negatively to the fans under the lighting fixtures which caused a noticeable

flicker. The next term, design, had several negative reactions (16%, n=15) in that there

should be some addition to the decor, such as coffee tables or sofas for groups to work

and study together. Furthermore, the students added that there should be a separation

between different areas for privacy or groups of students. The next factor, food

setup/selection, (10%, n=9) had responses from students stating that they wanted all of

the facilities to be open later, in addition to having a larger selection of dining venues.

Figure 4-3 shows pie charts of the top four positive and negative responses from

the students in the Residential and Fast Food Dining facilities. There was a total of

N=114 positive, and N=78 negative responses from these five dimensions in the

Residential Dining facility. There was a total of N=73 positive, and N=92 negative

responses from these five dimensions in the Fast Food Dining facility. As mentioned

above, the "other" category includes all other items the students responded to. Lastly, the

term "location" was greatly responded to positively in both dining facilities; however,

because interior variables are only being considered for this study, it was eliminated from

the results and pie charts.

























Residential (Positive) Residential (Negative)

Note. Other includes music, staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature,
and social qualities.
Food U Design U Music
E Other (See Note) E Lighting
Spaciousness E Social


Fast Food (Positive) Fast Food (Negative)

Note. Other includes staff, windows, cleanliness, price, color scheme, temperature, and
studying.
Figure 4-3 Pie Charts of Frequency of Responses for the Residential (Top) and Fast Food
(Bottom) Dining Facilities.









Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social Arrangements

Do students in these two contrasting dining facilities differ significantly in their

preferences for dining ni ith friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone?

This final closed-ended portion of the questionnaire asked the students to rate their

preference, on a scale from one (never) to five (very often), for dining in their facility in

four types of social arrangements-with a friend, romantic partner, group of friends, and

alone. In this test, the dependent variables were the types of social arrangements. The

independent variable was the dining facility, which consisted of two levels (the

Residential Dining facility and the Fast Food Dining facility).

Four different types of social arrangements were cross-tabulated with both dining

facilities to determine which types of social arrangement was the strongest in each dining

facility. It should be noted that the questionnaires' instructions explicitly stated that the

students were to judge their preference for dining in each social arrangement based upon

the space they were in, not on any of the photographs.

Table 4-12 demonstrates that there is no correlation between the dining facility and

students' preferences for dining in any of the four different types of social arrangements.

The social arrangement of the students bringing a friend (arrangement 1) to the dining

facility had the responses of "very often." The social arrangement of the students

bringing a romantic partner (arrangement 2) to their dining facility had overwhelming

responses of "never." Additionally, the students responded to "occasionally" dining with

a group of friends (arrangement 3) from both dining facilities. Lastly, students also

responded to "occasionally" dining alone (arrangement 4) in both facilities.









Table 4-12 Cross Tabulation of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social
Interactions.

Residential Dining

Contexts Preferences

Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often
Friend 1(2%) 4 (8%) 11(22%) 9 (18%) 25 (50%)

Romantic Partner 32 (64%) 10 (20%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 6 (12%)

Group 1 (2%) 10 (20%) 18(36%) 13 (26%) 8 (16%)

Alone 4(8%) 15 (30%) 16(32%) 9(18%) 6(12%)


Fast Food Dining

Contexts Preferences

Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very Often
Friend 0 (0%) 5 (10.2%) 15 (30.6%) 14 (28.6%) 15(30.6%)

Romantic Partner 21 (42.9%) 14 (28.6%) 7 (14.3%) 6 (12.2%) 1 (2%)

Group 2(4.1%) 11(22.4%) 14 (28.6%) 9 (18.4%) 13(26.5%)

Alone 9 (18.4%) 13(26.5%) 14(28.6%) 8 (16.3%) 5(10.2%)



Note. In the Residential Dining facility, N=50. In the Fast Food Dining facility, N=49.
Highlighted items are students' majority of responses.


A MANOVA was conducted, with the Wilks' Lambda test statistic used to

determine significance. As shown in Table 4-13, the MANOVA statistical analysis

reveals that the dining facility did not have a significant effect on the students'

preferences for dining in any of the four types of social arrangements F(4, 94) = 2.10, p >

.05.









Table 4-13 MANOVA of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Different Social
Interactions.

Value F df p

Dining Facility .92 2.10 4 .087


Upon closer examination of Biner and Butler's (1989) study, the researcher re-

coded the data into three categories of dining: 1) alone, 2) platonic, and 3) romantic

partner to test for significance. These categories are clear and specific types of dining

arrangements. The researcher conducted a new MANOVA with the updated and re-

coded categories, and Table 4-14 reveals that once again, statistical significance was not

found F(3, 194) = 1.67, p > .05.

Table 4-14 Re-Coded MANOVA of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Different
Social Interactions.

Value F df p

Dining Facility .98 1.67 3 .174


The lack of statistical significance found on the dining facilities' affect on the

students' preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements reinforces the

results from the students' cross-tabulation data. Therefore, the students from both dining

facilities do not differ in their preferences for dining in any of the types of social

arrangements.

Summary

In the current study, empirical evidence indicated that both the dining facility and

the lighting levels had a significant effect on how the space was perceived. Additionally,

the interaction of the facilities and lighting levels together were associated with how the

space was perceived by the students. The students in the Residential Dining facility









supported Flynns' (1973) theory based upon consistent shared impressions of their

facility, and shared changes in impressions as the lighting in their facility was varied.

The students from the Fast Food Dining facility had inconsistent impressions for the

lighting in their facility, as well as inconsistent impressions in the variations in lighting

levels as depicted in the four photographs.

Students' written responses on their positive and negative reactions towards their

facility also gave insight into the numerous dimensions that are important to creating a

successful dining facility. The Residential Dining facility received more positive

responses than negative responses. The Fast Food Dining facility received more negative

responses than positive responses. However, all replies and reactions toward the space

were valuable to the researcher in determining general guidelines for designers, which

will be discussed in chapter five. Lastly, it was determined that the dining facility had no

significant effect on the student's preferences for dining in the four different types of

social arrangements.














CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

"The presence of food and the anticipation of eating seem to create an atmosphere
of comfort and informality, a softening of the situation, encouraging participants to
feel more relaxed and to enjoy themselves, even if they are alone" (Franck, 2002
p.12).

Interior designers, architects, and facility planners design holistic settings, and base

their designs on a large number of variables. Empirical studies, such as Flynn's lighting

research, can only provide limited evidence and recommendations for designers because

experimental studies must isolate variables one at a time to test their significance.

Inferences about one variable are of limited use to designers until they are tested in a

natural setting. Therefore, this exploratory study was conducted in a holistic setting of

two contrasting University of Florida dining facilities. The procedures and instruments

were identified from significant studies (Flynn, 1973; Biner and Butler, 1989) and linked

heuristically. This study yielded empirical findings in students' perceptions of lighting

and environmental preferences for dining in different types of social arrangements in

campus dining facilities. Merit can be found in exploring a complex natural setting as a

way to develop design guidelines. Therefore, the current study establishes a dialog

between several possible dimensions that go into creating a successful dining facility

from the students' point of view.

Another positive result of carrying out this study with a holistic, exploratory

approach was that the students were able to be observed in the pre-study phase in their

natural, existing environment, and these observations were then used to design measures









to isolate the variables of lighting, dining preferences, and social arrangement.

Furthermore, after these observations were conducted and absorbed, the researcher could

return to the same settings and survey the students about their perceptions of the lighting

based on Flynn's categories of impressions (EI, PC, S), as well as preferences for dining,

and preferences for types of social arrangements in their setting. The importance of

returning to the contextual setting where the observations were made was critical to this

study because unlike previous research, the students taking part in the survey were in the

setting when they answered the survey questions. Empirical studies completed in

controlled or a-contextual settings do not provide the realistic and complex setting to the

participants that the current study was able to achieve.

One limitation to this study is the use of two groups of students rather than one that

could dine in both facilities. Thus, the two groups of students from each facility were

convenience samples that were unable to compare the two facilities. Therefore, it is not

possible to definitively say which setting is better or, which lighting design is more

successful. Another limitation to this exploratory study is that there are three research

questions rather than one. The three questions were not theoretically linked and therefore

answers cannot be linked empirically. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that each

question is relevant and warrants further investigation. Furthermore, logical connections

can be made between the findings that will provide designers with generalized guidelines

on the dimensions studied. Lastly, it is important to remember that people comment on

things they care about. Although this study does not produce empirically linked findings,

the logical associations made between the three research questions posed, as well as the









inferences made from the data, can contribute to designers seeking to create a successful

dining facility.

Interpretations of Students' Perceptions of Variations in Light Levels

Do students who dine in the Residential Diningfacility lit i/th a combination of

functional and subjective lighting-express a significantly greater preference for lighting

in this setting than those students who dine in the Fast Food Diningfacility-lit

predominantly i i/h functional lighting?

The findings conclude that the students in the Residential Dining Facility had a

greater preference for their perception of lighting in their setting than the students in the

Fast Food Dining facility. Flynns' (1973) hypothesis was supported by the students'

responses to the semantic differential scale in a natural campus dining setting. The

students from the Residential Dining facilities' consistent impressions of the lighting in

their space, as well as their consistent shared impressions of the variations in lighting are

in line with Flynns' research. However, the students in the Fast Food Dining facility had

inconsistent impressions of the lighting conditions in their actual space.

Also, Flynn (1973) defined and isolated three main categories of impressions that

may affect how people perceive lighting in their space. The interaction of the dining

facility and the lighting significantly influenced how students perceived five of the

adjectives developed by Flynn. The evaluative, or emotional impressions that yielded

significance were the adjectives dislike/like, and unpleasant/pleasant. The perceptual

clarity or functional impressions that were found to be significant were hazy/clear and

blurry/focused. Lastly, the spaciousness, or interior architecture adjective that was

determined significant was confining/spacious. Therefore, designers and architects

should be aware that lighting systems can impact students' perceptions of their space, and









thus should take into consideration these five adjectives when designing lighting systems

to afford for a likeable, pleasant, clear, focused and spacious university dining facility.

Lastly, not only do the findings in this study support Flynns' hypothesis as stated

earlier, but several contributions were made in addition to Flynns' work. First, this study

was conducted in a natural holistic setting of two contrasting college dining facilities;

one, a residential dining space, and two, a common fast food space. Unlike Flynns' a-

contextual laboratory research, the current study was conducted in a contextual setting.

Second, pre-study observations were made of the students in both dining facilities before

distributing the survey. Thus, the researcher was able to understand the students'

behavior before any data was collected. In addition, through pre-study observations, it

was found that the students in the Residential Dining facility stayed approximately ten

minutes longer in this location, and thus this supports the semantic differential findings

that indicate that these students have a higher preference for their dining facility than the

Fast Food Dining students do. In addition, this study was triangulated by adding open-

ended questions, and preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. Lastly,

the current study used computer-enhanced photographs to depict the four variations in the

lighting levels of the two dining facilities.

Interpretations of Students' Positive and Negative Reactions toward their Dining
Facility

Do students who dine in the Residential Diningfacility n i/h an open kitchen and

enhanced food choices-express a higher preference score for their overall dining

experience than students in the Fast Food Diningfi i i i i/h a closed kitchen and

limited food choices?









The findings infer that the students in the Residential Dining facility had a higher

preference for their dining experience than the students in the Fast Food Dining facility.

When asked directly what the students liked and disliked about their setting, the

Residential Dining facility received a majority of positive responses, while the Fast Food

Dining facility received a majority of negative responses. Additionally, the students in

the Residential Dining facility had consistent top four responses, both positively and

negatively for food, spaciousness, lighting, and design. Although the four items were

rated both positively and negatively, it is clear that these items are important to students

when occupying a university dining facility. Thus, students care about the food, but also

important, they care about the design, the spaciousness, and the lighting the physical

environment. However, in the Fast Food Dining facility, there were not as clear

indications of the top four important dimensions to students in this space. One consistent

positive and negative response from the students in the Fast Food Dining facility was the

term spaciousness. The students indicated that spaciousness may be defined in several

ways, and were not merely the facilities' square footage. While several positive

responses related to the Fast Food Dining facilities' physical size, the same proportion of

responses were negative, thus indicating that other factors are important to how students

perceive spaciousness. Furthermore, because the Fast Food Dining facility was two and a

half times larger than the Residential Dining facility, factors such as over-crowding or

distracting ambient noise may lead the students to feel the space is closing in on them,

leading to over-stimulation and thus, a perception of non-spaciousness. Nonetheless,

students pay attention to their dining facility, and they have opinions about how well it

suits their needs.









Interpretations of Students' Preferences for Dining in Four Types of Social
Arrangements

Do students in these two contrasting dining facilities differ significantly in their

preferences for dining ni ith friend, a romantic partner, a group of friends, or alone?

The findings deduce that there is no association between the dining facility and the

students' preferences for dining in four types of social arrangements. Biner and Butler

(1989) hypothesized that lighting levels and social arrangements both affect arousal, and

it was found that brightness preferences were lower with romantic partners than with a

platonic friend or with a group of platonic friends. In Biner and Butler's empirical study,

when individuals maintain an optimal arousal level, then preferred lighting levels for

particular settings should vary in different social arrangements. While the Likert scale

results for the current study did not yield any significant findings, inferences can be made

that link the physical design setting to the student's arousal level. The Fast Food Dining

facility did not have a stimulating physical design; however, it was possible that the

students were over-stimulated by such elements as the volume and size of the space, the

number of students that frequented the space, and the ambient noise. This may explain

the student's low preferences for their dining facility. Additionally, the Residential

Dining facility did have a stimulating physical design, and therefore it may be inferred

that the student's moderate arousal level affected their positive response to their dining

facility. However, this study did not link students' preferences for social arrangements

with variations in lighting levels, but only students' preferences for dining in different

types of social arrangements in the space.









Limitations

It should be noted that several factors influenced and impacted the results of this

study. Initially, students who were seated at tables being recruited who were unwilling to

take part in the questionnaire were limiting. The photographs taken for this study vary in

that the images from the Residential Dining facility contain more people than the images

from the Fast Food Dining facility. Although students are not comparing photographs

between facilities, the presence of people dining in the Residential Dining facility may

have represented a more sociable dining atmosphere than the absence of people in the

images from the Fast Food Dining facility. Another limitation of the photographs is that

because the lighting levels were manipulated in Adobe Photoshop, footcandle

measurements could not be recorded for these variations.

Also, a selection bias was used to limit this study, because students were more

likely to be recruited who attended their facility more often, and thus typically stayed

longer. In relation to this, questionnaires were distributed at one facility in one week and

at the second facility the next week. However, it would have been more reliable to this

study to alternate between facilities day by day to account for unknown factors, such as

possible exams during one week.

Suggestions for Further Research

As noted by Sommer and Sommer (2002), "If you want to find out what people do,

you should observe them. If you want to find out what they think, you should ask them

directly" (p.60). Through this study, information was sought that may be applied to other

university dining facilities. While this study yielded several individual questions and

separate ideas, further studies need to logically connect and develop on these three

research questions. Additional exploration of students' perceptions of lighting levels, as









well as their environmental preferences for their dining facility, and preferences for

dining in different types of social arrangements must be completed before definitive

results can be concluded. As discussed earlier, this study is holistic and exploratory in

nature. Therefore, empirical research should be conducted that focuses on each research

question individually; or one variable should be consistently studied in each research

question to empirically link all data.

Further research should compare two contrasting dining facilities with one group of

students. Through this one group, students could attend both dining facilities for a

specified number of days per week and then could make comparisons of both facilities.

Additionally, students could complete a short questionnaire each time they visit the

facility to consistently track their perceptions of the lighting levels. Thus, methodical

data collection tools are required as this may draw conclusions that are more definitive.

Additionally, further studies should increase the time for data collection. This data was

collected during four weeks at the start of the spring semester, and schedules could have

affected several factors such as how long the students stayed in the space, or whether or

not they studied.

For further studies, physical lighting dimmers should be used for the spaces being

studied, as opposed to variations in lighting levels through photographs. While it was

successful for the students to complete the questionnaire in the space itself, validity

would have further increased if the lighting levels were to be manually adjusted and

recorded for each adjustment with a light-meter. Therefore, the students would not have

to respond to photographs depicting different lighting level variations, but would have

been able to see the variations of the lighting levels in the space while completing the









questionnaire. One way to complete this would be to change the lighting levels during

closed hours in order to measure any changes in the students' responses. However, the

students would have to be present each day the lighting was changed.

Furthermore, if the lighting levels were to be adjusted manually, this technique

should be used for determining the students' preferences for dining in different social

arrangements. As previously mentioned, the final research question on students'

preferences for social arrangements was not connected to the first research question on

students' perceptions of lighting levels within their setting. This remains to be tested in

another study in a natural, holistic setting. However, if the three categories used in the

first research question (EI, PC, S) could be tied into students' preference for dining in

four types of social arrangements, this will also link the variable of lighting. Therefore,

the students would be responding to their preference for dining in different social

arrangements in their space as well as the four variations in lighting levels. For example,

students may prefer dining with a group of friends in bright lighting, while students may

prefer dining with a romantic partner in dim lighting. In addition, further questions and

data collection tools should be examined. Students, staff and management should be

interviewed to obtain a more complete, qualitative concept of the students' desires, as

well as the staff and management's concerns.

Suggestions for Architects, Designers, Facility Planners, and College Dining
Management

Generalized guidelines have been constructed that can be applied for both types of

the contrasting dining facilities. These guidelines should be taken into consideration by

architects, designers, and facility planners, as well as university management who are

seeking to create a successful college dining facility that goes beyond the standard and









explores deeply into the overall dining experience of the students. In addition to these

guidelines, designers should consider using digital photographs as a tool in surveying

students' preferences for their dining facility before construction begins. Furthermore,

design drawings could be evaluated in terms of the three categories of impressions for

judging lighting: evaluative, perceptual clarity, and spaciousness, before the facility was

completed. Thus, meeting the students preferences for these categories will afford for a

successful dining facility.

Lighting

The combination of functional and subjective lighting systems in college dining

facilities creates a cohesive, compositional design element. The use of compact

fluorescents provides large spaces with ample lighting without causing glare or flicker.

Decorative lighting fixtures also create attractive focal points for the eye, as well as

contributing to an informal, relaxed ambience. Lighting fixtures should be installed non-

uniformly at specific points of interest to lead the eye around the room, such as over table

tops. Additionally, the findings from the students' open-ended responses indicated that

the combination of functional and subjective lighting in the Residential Dining facility

received both positive and negative responses, while the Fast Food Dining facility, lit

with predominantly functional lighting received all negative responses. Thus, providing

college dining facilities with a cohesive assortment of functional and subjective lighting

fixtures will be more preferred than a purely functional lighting system.

According to the IESNA Lighting Handbook, 8th edition, the recommended light

level for task area dining is 15 footcandles, while the recommended light level for general

area dining is 10 footcandles (www.iesna.org 1999). Also, as Ozturk (2003) emphasized,

three variables must be taken into consideration in order to provide a successful lighting









environment: the number of luminaires, the luminous intensity distribution, and the

placement of the luminaires. Depending on the size of the space, as well as its function

of residential or fast food type dining, the IESNA Lighting Handbook should be

consulted to provide for these three variables.

Furthermore, because studying was observed and reported in the Fast Food Dining

facility, designers should consider creating spaces or zones for defined tasks such as

group studying, individual studying, and group meetings, in addition to dining areas

simply used for eating. Therefore, different types of lighting fixtures and installations in

addition to the settings' ambient lighting should be incorporated into these defined zones.

For example, task lighting may be used in studying zones, while accent lighting may be

integrated in group meeting zones. Therefore, students will be more likely to have an

optimal arousal level while dining or studying due to the combined functional and

subjective lighting installations that reinforce the various zones and tasks.

Design

The dining facility should offer seating areas that afford for social arrangement as

well as spaces for individuals who wish to dine alone. Also, ample seating should be

provided for students during peak meal times. In large cafeteria-like spaces, the backs of

chairs should be kept at a distance to prevent bumping when sitting down and standing up

(21"-24" Chiara et al., 2001). A social atmosphere can be created by placing some tables

in circular cluster arrangements that will also afford for group studying. Secluded, quiet

zones are useful for students who wish to study or dine alone. Additionally, variations in

table sizes are useful for large groups who are dining or studying together as well as

people who are dining or studying alone.









For students using computers, several outlets should be installed in the walls, the

floor, or in the tabletop, depending on the table arrangements. Also, wireless internet

should be installed for computer networks. In Residential Dining facilities, an open

kitchen should be utilized to promote arrangement between staff and students.

Additionally, this will create short lines during peak meal hours. In Fast Food Dining

facilities, several choices of vendors will reduce long lines as well as afford for customer

satisfaction by providing many options. The use of some soft materials, such as fabric on

the chairs, or carpet designed for commercial use, will reduce the distracting noise level.

Additionally, if music is to be played, it should be rotated between different genres

of music to satisfy all customers' preferences. Also, the temperature of the facility

should not be too cold so that it affects the temperature of the students' food. Just the

same, if the temperature is too warm, the students will be uncomfortable in the dining

space. Lastly, a cohesive color scheme that is not too bright and jarring, but that is also

not one plain color should be considered. The use of warm, saturated colors such as

shades of red and orange provide a quick turnover of customers, while cool, colors such

as shades of blue and green promote relaxation and a longer time spent in the facility.

One color scheme should be applied throughout the space, as well as in the details, such

as the dishware, furniture and fixtures.

Food

Provide the students with food options, such as healthy foods for a balanced diet.

Also, consider using local resources to keep the food seasonal and fresh. Specifically, in

Residential Dining facilities, during off-peak hours there should be a consistent selection

of food available to students. Also, to minimize lines in open kitchens, several chefs

should be cooking at stations for meals that are prepared individually, such as sandwiches









or omelets. In Fast Food Dining facilities, a wide variety of fast food vendors should

open for longer hours due to students' various schedules (5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.).

Conclusion

"The pleasure of eating is one we share with animals ... The pleasures of the table
are known only to the human race" (Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, p. 182).

There is a significant increase in the modernization of university dining, and thus,

more designers are looking to the students' needs to fulfill these requirements. This

researcher hopes to shed light on the importance of students' perceptions of lighting

levels, preferences for dining facilities, and preferences for dining in different types of

social arrangements in order to create and foster successful college dining facilities.

Conclusively, the findings indicate that lighting is important in both residential and fast-

food type campus dining facilities for a number of issues that designers care about. The

type and quality of the lighting does significantly affect students' reported perceptions of

lighting in their setting three ways: 1) how a person emotionally evaluates lighting, 2)

how a person functionally evaluates lighting, and 3) how a person spatially evaluates

lighting. The students' positive and negative preferences toward their dining facility also

shed light on the several dimensions important to creating and fostering a successful

dining facility. This will further contribute to the field of research in students'

perceptions to lighting in university dining settings, as well as students' environmental

preferences for their dining facilities. Lastly, the general guidelines outlined above

provide important contributions to designers that will further enhance students' overall

experience when dining on campus.















APPENDIX A
RESIDENTIAL DINING FACILITY


Sigure A- Kesidential Dining Very Dim


Figure A-2 Residential Dining -Dim




























figure A-3 Residential










Table A-i Residential Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule

Floor Walls Ceiling

Finish Baseboards Materials


Lime Green Paint
Dark Purple Paint
Concrete Block

Wall-length windows


Open Plenum
Suspended cables
Painted black cables,
HVAC system,
and trusses.
Clerestory Window


None


Dark
Brown

Orange


Brick Red

Teal

Stained
Concrete
With
Semi-gloss
Finish.









Table A-2 Residential Dining Facility Furniture Schedule

Chairs Tables

Dimensions Materials Dimensions

Short Chairs Short Chairs Short Small
Tables:
Seat diameter: 16" Seat: Black Vinyl 24"x30"x30"
Seat height: 18" Frame: Steel Painted
Total Height: 30" Gray Short Medium Tables

30"x48"x30"

Tall Chairs Tall Chairs Short Large Tables

Seat diameter: 16" Seat: Black Vinyl 30"x72"x30"
Seat height: 30" Frame: Steel Painted
Total Height: 42" Gray Tall Small Tables

24"x30"x42.5"

Tall Medium Tables

30"x48"x42.5"









Frequency of Use
3
2
1


E14 35


30o


C12
cd4
m
lie

02


yB


mE3

m w


Figure A-5 Residential Dining Facility Observed Frequency of Occupancy


mI


m


04 E595[7

ILA A


EDn 9 1 A
m @ l B)O


4















APPENDIX B
FAST FOOD DINING FACILITY


figure B- I tast ood Dining Very lim


Figure B-2 Fast Food Dining -Dim






81




















Figure B-3 Fast Food Dining -Bright





.- ....


Figure B-4 Fast Food Dining -Very Bright









Table B-l Fast Food Dining Facility Room Finish Schedule

Floor Walls Ceiling

Finish Baseboards Materials


Seating=
12"x12"
Carpet tiles
(Woven blue,
Green, red,
Purple and
Neutral).

Circulation=
Terrazzo
(Beige/
Yellow)


None


Wendy's
Sushi &
Noodle Bar
Home Zone
Subway

Wall-length
Windows


Supporting
columns
Off-White Fabric


Acoustical
Tiles
(2'x2')

Dropped
Gypsum
Ceiling
(Off-White)

Wood Veneer
Paneling in
Soffits


Hanging Ceiling Fans









Table B-2 Fast Food Dining Facility Furniture Schedule

Chairs Tables

Dimensions Materials Dimensions


Short Chairs

Seat Diameter: 18"
Seat Height: 18"
Total Height: 37"


Short Chairs

Seat: Dark Blue Vinyl
Frame: Steel Painted
Brown


Short Small
Tables:
24"x30"x30"

Short Medium Tables


30"x48"x30"


Tall Chairs

Seat Diameter: 18"
Seat Height: 30"
Total Height: 42"


Tall Chairs

Seat: Dark Blue Vinyl
Frame: Steel Painted
Brown


Short Large Tables

30"x60"x30"

Round Tables:
48" Diameter
Height=30"










-pn


Frequency of Use

i3
2
1s


8088 a


@ 60


i 53>i

C BOB


DBBB


wealace
~b $c ~za


Figure B-5 Fast Food Dining Facility


Observed Frequency of Occupancy














APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE

Assessing the College Dining Experience

This study examines your perceptions of the lighting conditions in this dining

facility as well as your preferences for this dining location. You will be shown four

different photographs on which to make your judgments. You will also be asked to

answer two questions on the space you are in. There are no correct or incorrect answers.

I am only interested in your preferences of the photographs and of the space you are in.

Thank you for your time and participation.









Semantic Scale Instructions

The following instructions explain how you are to use the scales provided.

If you feel that the photograph is very closely related to one end of the scale, you should
place the check mark as follows:


Very Quite
[ ] [


Neither/Nor
] [ ]


Quite Neither/Nor
[ ] [ ]


Quite
[ ]


Quite
[ ]


Very
[ ]


Very
[ ]


Like


Like


If you consider the photograph to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally
associated with the photograph, then you should place the check mark as follows:


Very Quite
[ ] [


Neither/Nor
I [ 1I


Quite
[ ] [


Very
] Like


If the photograph is slightly related to one end of the scale, but not neutral, you should
place the check mark as follows:


Very Quite
[ ] [


Very Quite
[ ] [ ]I


Neither/Nor
] [ ]


Neither/Nor
[ ]


Be sure to read both words before you make your decision.
Place your check marks as shown above in the blank spaces, do not circle a word.
Be sure you check every scale for every photograph.
Never put more than one check mark on a single scale.
Please do not look back and forth through the items.
Work at a fairly high speed through this questionnaire.
Do not worry over individual items. I am only looking for your first thoughts.



You are now ready to begin the questionnaire.
For Question # 1 use the SPACE you are in to complete the scale.
For Question #2-5 Please use the attached booklet.


Dislike


Dislike


Dislike


Dislike


Dislike


Quite
[ 4 ]


Quite
[ ]


Very
[


Very
[ ]


Like


Like









1. To what degree does the lighting in the space invoke a perception of...

Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Dislike [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Like

Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Unpleasant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pleasant

Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Visually [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Visually
Cool Warm
Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Hazy [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clear

Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Bright [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Dim

Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Focused [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Blurry

Very Quite Neither/Nor Quite Very
Confining [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Spacious









2. To what degree does the lighting in Photograph 1 invoke a perception of...


Very Quite
Dislike [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Unpleasant [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Visually [ ] [ ]
Cool
Very Quite
Hazy [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Bright [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Focused [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Confining [ ] [ ]


Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]


Like


Pleasant


Visually
Warm

Clear


Dim


Blurry


Spacious









3. To what degree does the lighting in Photograph 2 invoke a perception of...


Very Quite
Dislike [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Unpleasant [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Visually [ ] [ ]
Cool
Very Quite
Hazy [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Bright [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Focused [ ] [ ]

Very Quite
Confining [ ] [ ]


Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]

Neither/Nor Quite Very
[ ] [ ] [ ]


Like


Pleasant


Visually
Warm

Clear


Dim


Blurry


Spacious