Rights to Light – Rise of Radiance

In this article we set out how Rights to Light and the Rise of Radiance is shaping assessments, and why the Waldram method still offers unmatched legal clarity and consistency.

Radiance, a physically based lighting simulation tool developed by Greg Ward at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the early 1990s, has long been considered the gold standard for daylight analysis in architecture and research.

Capable of modelling complex light behaviours—such as reflection, refraction, and scattering—Radiance delivers highly realistic results. But as it gains ground in rights to light assessments, a critical question arises:

Does more complexity necessarily lead to better outcomes?

A New Era in Rights to Light Assessment

Traditionally, assessors have evaluated rights to light using the Waldram method—a geometric, visibility-based approach developed by Percy Waldram. This method measures the amount of visible sky from a reference point within a room, with the accepted benchmark being visibility of at least 0.2% of the sky dome across 50–55% of the working plane.

Radiance, in contrast, models daylight dynamically. It considers a range of variables—geographic location, time of year, weather conditions, and material properties—to simulate how light behaves in real spaces. This process produces a highly detailed and realistic depiction of daylight levels. However, this sophistication depends heavily on the quality of the inputs and the technical expertise of the user.

Crucially, while the numeric outputs of Radiance are comprehensive, the visual representations it produces are often subjective—and this matters when objectivity is essential.

Radiance Delivers Precision—But at a Cost

Radiance uses backward ray tracing, simulating rays of light as they travel through a space, bounce off surfaces, and interact with materials. Variables such as ambient bounces, sampling resolution, and sky models control the simulation's accuracy and run time.

Properly configured, Radiance can generate powerful performance metrics:

Daylight Autonomy (DA)

Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI)

False-colour renderings

Glare predictions

High-fidelity photorealistic images

But achieving this level of precision isn’t straightforward. Slight variations in material reflectance, geometry, or simulation settings can significantly alter outcomes.

More critically for rights to light, Radiance does not use fixed legal thresholds. Instead, they require post-processing and expert knowledge to relate simulation results to rights of light criteria often leading to subjective interpretation.

The Pitfalls of Over-Complexity in Rights to Light

Radiance isn’t a plug-and-play solution. As a command-line tool, it demands a strong understanding of lighting physics and simulation parameters. While platforms like Honeybee, DIVA, and ClimateStudio provide graphical interfaces, they do not eliminate the steep learning curve or the reliance on expert judgment.

This complexity poses challenges in legal contexts. Where the Waldram method provides repeatable and standardised results, Radiance introduces variability. Two practitioners using Radiance could reach entirely different conclusions, depending on how each configures their simulation model.

In legal disputes, this lack of consistency can result in conflicting expert reports—a clear risk when presenting evidence in court.

Impressive Outputs That Don’t Always Persuade

Radiance excels in design, sustainability, and certification environments, where its outputs support performance-driven goals. Metrics such as DA and UDI are invaluable for certifications like LEED, WELL, and BREEAM. However, their reliance on assumptions—about occupancy patterns, sensor positions, material data, and sky models—reduces their value in rights to light assessments.

Moreover, Radiance does not inherently measure against rights of light thresholds like the 0.2% sky factor. Any such comparison must be derived manually or through custom scripts, introducing further opportunity for inconsistency and interpretation.

Waldram: The Strength of Simplicity

The Waldram method remains the most reliable and defensible standard in rights to light assessment. Its simplicity is its strength. By measuring sky visibility using consistent geometric rules, it avoids assumptions about behaviour, use, or interpretation.

For legal purposes, clarity and repeatability matter more than realism. As rights of light cases often hinge on small margins and strict compliance, this level of consistency is invaluable. There’s no ambiguity in a Waldram analysis—either a room receives the minimum sky factor or it doesn’t.

Rights to Light Rise of Radiance: A Complement, Not a Replacement

Radiance has undeniable value in exploring how light behaves in complex architectural environments. For design optimisation, it offers unparalleled insights. However, in legal contexts—especially disputes—it must be treated with caution.

The rights to light rise of Radiance should be seen as a complement to, not a replacement for, the Waldram approach. While Radiance enhances our understanding, Waldram remains the only method that offers the objectivity, clarity, and legal certainty needed for enforceable rights assessments.

Evolving Expectations, Enduring Principles

Daylight in the built environment is inherently complex and influenced by a range of subjective factors, including socio-economic conditions, architectural design, building use, geographic location, and local weather patterns. The Waldram method has stood the test of time but with over a hundred years of building development and social expectations since its inception, the Waldram metric of the 0.2% sky component may be out dated.

Ultimately, Radiance is a more sophisticated way of analysing the lit condition of a space and should play some part in analysing the risk. However, in the legal arena, what matters most is what can be measured, proven, and repeated—something Waldram delivers with elegant simplicity.

Conclusion: Balancing Innovation with Legal Integrity

There’s no doubt that Radiance has a role to play in the evolving field of rights of light—especially where a deeper understanding of daylight conditions adds value. But that role should be complementary, not a replacement for established geometric methods.

The Waldram approach remains the most reliable, defensible method for rights of light assessment. Its strength lies not in simulating reality, but in simplifying it—providing clear, objective thresholds that stand up to scrutiny. However, the modern surveyor recognizes its limitations and further research is needed to bridge the gap between the simplicity of Waldram and the complexity of raytracing software such as Radiance.

As surveyors, we must remain open to innovation—while never losing sight of what makes an assessment defensible: clarity, simplicity, and repeatability.

Contact - Rights to Light Rise of Radiance

With a reputation built on trust, expertise, and results, Anstey Horne provides clear, strategic advice across the UK. Contact our team to discuss your project and protect your position today.

For more information on how a right is acquired, measured and defended, please see our Fact Sheet, and for a collection of articles on all aspect of this service see our blog.

For advice on rights to light direct from one of our surveyors, please call our Rights to Light Enquiry Line on 020 4534 3138.

If you’d like us to call you, please fill in our Contact Us form and we will call you back.