







































Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 
24-32                      

24 

 

 

 

Article 

Occupants’ satisfaction with STPV window design in 

private and open spaces by VR images 
Zhan Chen, Nangkula Utaberta*, Nadzirah Zainordin  

School of Architecture & Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Technology & Built Environment, UCSI University, 

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 

A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 15 May 2025  
Received in revised form 
28 June 2025 
Accepted 11 July 2025 
 
Keywords:  
Semi-transparent photovoltaic,  
Cell coverage ratios,  
Igroup presence questionnaire,  
Occupant satisfaction 
 
*Corresponding author 
Email address: 
nangkula@ucsiuniversity.edu.my 
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.3 

A B S T R A C T 
 

Semi-transparent photovoltaic (STPV) systems have gained increasing 
attention for their ability to generate electricity while reducing energy 
consumption compared to conventional windows, addressing climate and 
energy challenges. However, STPV systems inherently reduce window 
transparency, which may compromise occupant visual comfort and satisfaction. 
This study experimentally investigates occupant satisfaction with crystalline 
silicon (c-Si) STPV windows at different cell coverage ratios (CCR) in private 
offices and open spaces using virtual reality (VR) technology validated by the 
Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ). Forty-five participants evaluated six CCR 
configurations (0%-50%) across two spatial types. Results show VR 
environments achieved satisfactory presence levels (IPQ: 70.37% private, 
70.06% open), validating the methodology. Occupant satisfaction decreased 
with increasing CCR in both spaces, from 5.11 to 3.00 (private) and 5.89 to 3.22 
(open). Open spaces showed significantly higher satisfaction than private 
offices for 10%-40% CCR, with convergence at 50% CCR. These findings 
provide design guidance for optimizing STPV integration while maintaining 
occupant comfort. 

1. Introduction 

Solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies have been well-
established for several decades and have undergone rapid 
development in response to pressing climate and energy 
challenges [1, 2]. These technologies reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and enhance energy security while providing 
sustainable, reliable electricity [3]. Recent economic 
assessments have demonstrated the significant impact of 
solar energy integration on local industries and technological 
advancement [4], while techno-economic analyses have 
validated the effectiveness of photovoltaic systems across 
different geographical contexts [5], underscoring the critical 
importance of optimizing STPV integration for sustainable 
building design. To enhance PV applications considering 
energy performance, spatial optimization, economic viability, 
and aesthetic integration, building-integrated photovoltaic 
(BIPV) technology has gained increasing attention. Semi-
transparent photovoltaic (STPV) systems, which can replace 
conventional glazing, represent one promising BIPV 
approach [6, 7]. It can be used on different parts of the 
windows, which allows for building energy efficiency and 
solar energy capture, as well as the generation of electrical 
energy in the system while controlling heat and light 
transmission [8, 9]. Since visible light transmittance (VLT), 
which is directly influenced by the cell coverage ratio (CCR) 

of STPV systems, determines indoor illumination levels, it 
exerts a significant influence on occupant physiological 
satisfaction and visual comfort [10-12]. Thus, if the STPV CCR 
is excessively high, the indoor atmosphere may become 
overly dark and unpleasant [13]. It is recognised that 
employees who are more satisfied with their workplace’s 
building internal environment tend to be more productive 
[14]. Furthermore, the complexity and cost of physically 
constructing multiple STPV configurations for comparative 
studies present significant methodological barriers to 
comprehensive research in this field. Despite their promising 
potential, current understanding of how different spatial 
configurations influence occupant satisfaction with varying 
cell coverage ratios remains limited. Previous studies have 
predominantly focused on energy performance optimization 
while neglecting the human-centric aspects of STPV 
integration. Furthermore, the methodological limitations of 
conducting physical experiments across multiple CCR 
configurations have constrained comprehensive comparative 
studies. Most existing research has been limited to simplified 
experimental rooms or single spatial typologies, thereby 
limiting the generalizability of findings to diverse real-world 
office environments. This limitation is particularly important 
to address, as occupant satisfaction is crucial for the 
successful adoption of STPV technologies in commercial 

May 2025| Volume 01 | Issue 01 | Pages 01- 03 

ISSN 2832-0379 

Open Access Journal 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/futech 

 

Future Technology  

 

November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/futech 

 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.3 

 

Future Technology 

Open Access Journal 

ISSN 2832-0379 

mailto:nangkula@ucsiuniversity.edu.my
https://fupubco.com/futech
https://fupubco.com/futech
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.3


Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

25 

 

buildings. While previous studies have investigated occupant 
responses to STPV window design, they have predominantly 
concentrated on satisfaction within small spaces [15] using 
simplified experimental rooms, thereby limiting the 
generalizability of findings to diverse office environments. 
This limitation is particularly problematic, as real-world 
office spaces vary substantially in scale, layout, and spatial 
characteristics. Conducting experimental studies on STPV 
window satisfaction across different spatial typologies with 
varying CCR configurations is critical for advancing our 
understanding of human-building interactions. However, 
physically constructing spaces with different STPV CCR 
configurations is extremely difficult and time-consuming, 
particularly when CCR parameters need to be validated 
before construction. 

As a potential solution to this problem, virtual reality (VR) 
technology through 3D view images has emerged as a popular 
alternative for experiencing various indoor spaces without 
creating a physical environment [16]. Therefore, leveraging 
VR technology within the architecture context has not only 
streamlined the time, cost, and manpower associated with 
constructing indoor spaces but has also simplified the process 
of identifying suitable design alternatives for various office 
configurations [17, 18]. To address the gap in understanding 
occupant satisfaction differences across various spatial 
configurations with identical STPV designs, an area 
inadequately covered by previous research, this study 
investigates occupant responses to STPV CCR variations in 
different spatial typologies. Towards this end, three 
objectives of experiments in the physical and virtual 
environments are performed in this study. 
(1) to evaluate whether virtual environments adequately 
represent physical environments in both private offices and 
open spaces.  
(2) to identify differences in occupant satisfaction across 
varying STPV CCR configurations.  
(3) to explore differences in occupant satisfaction between 
different spatial typologies.  

This study can (1) enhance understanding of occupant 
satisfaction with c-Si STPV systems, (2) inform optimization 
of design variables (i.e., STPV CCR) for different office 
configurations, and (3) enable systematic identification of 
occupant satisfaction patterns based on CCR and spatial 
typology. Beyond conventional VR applications, this research 
introduces a novel methodological framework that integrates 
precision-controlled CCR simulation with validated presence 
measurement, establishing new protocols for evaluating 
human-centric performance of emerging photovoltaic 
technologies. The study advances smart building technologies 
by developing quantitative design thresholds for automated 
STPV optimization systems and contributes to user-centered 
photovoltaic integration through empirically-derived 
satisfaction models that can inform adaptive building control 
algorithms. 

2. Methodology 

An experimental study is designed and performed to 
investigate occupant responses pertaining to their 
satisfaction with STPV CCR in physical and virtual built 
environments. Virtual environments were utilized to assess 
participants’ subjective satisfaction in private offices and 
open spaces, focusing on variations in the CCR of STPV 
windows. Participants were recruited from within the same 
office campus to facilitate on-site participation. The virtual 
environments were configured with identical dimensions to 
the actual spaces selected from the architectural drawings. (i). 

Prior to the experiment, participants’ demographic 
information (i.e., age, gender, color blindness, and age-related 
eye conditions) was collected, and VR system operation 
training was conducted. (ii). During the experiment, 
participants wore a head-mounted display (HMD) connected 
to the research computer for system control. Participants 
were given 1 minute to adapt to the virtual environment 
before proceeding with the evaluation questionnaire [19]. 

2.1 Step1: Data collection 
2.1.1 Target space information 

The reference building, located in Chengdu city, 
southwest of China, is a 6-story office structure with a floor 
area of 512.20 m². Each floor includes four small private office 
rooms (11 m² each), two large private office rooms (30 m² 
and 33 m²), two conference rooms (18 m² and 33 m²), a public 
working space (192 m²), and auxiliary facilities. The net 
height under the ceiling is 3.0 m. According to the Chinese 
norm “Standard for Design of Office Building JGJ/T 67-2019,” 
the net height of single and modular offices without 
centralized air-conditioning should not be less than 2.70 m, 
and single-room offices should not have a floor area of less 
than 10 m² [19, 20]. Private offices and open spaces were 
chosen as the research environments, as illustrated in Figure 
1. 

 

 
 
Figure 1. Information about the building and space (Source: drawn 
and photographed by the author) 



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

26 

 

2.1.2 STPV window information 
The STPV structure was configured as 3mm glass + 

0.76mm PVB + crystalline silicon (c-Si) PV cell + 0.76mm PVB 
+ 3mm glass, which is similar to the original glass structure. 
According to the Chinese norm “Design Standard for Energy 
Efficiency of Public Buildings,” the visible light transmittance 
(VLT) of windows must exceed 0.40 [21]. Additionally, 
considering the integration of PV cells within the glazing 
system, the coverage ratio of semi-transparent photovoltaic 
(STPV) systems should not exceed 0.50. In this study, the 
STPV coverage ratio was varied from 10% to 50%, with a fully 
glazed window (0% CCR) selected as the comparative 
benchmark [19], as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Crystalline Silicon solar Window with different cell cover 
ratio (CCR), (South: Author)  

 

2.2 Step 2: Construction of virtual environment 
2.2.1 Virtual environment setting 

In this study, Rhino 7.8 and ClimateStudio were used for 
modeling and rendering the virtual environments. Pigasus 
served as the image player engine for converting two-
dimensional fisheye images into three-dimensional spaces, 

while Meta Quest 2 was employed as the head-mounted 
display (HMD) device. However, specific technical 
specifications such as frame rate, image resolution, and 
latency were not systematically documented, representing a 
methodological limitation for replication and technical 
validation. For STPV configurations with different CCR values, 
the virtual environments were implemented identically, with 
only the window configurations varying. The study used 
standardized lighting conditions and did not account for time-
of-day variations or real environmental lighting changes, 
representing a limitation that should be addressed in future 
dynamic lighting studies. The VR environments of private 
offices with different STPV CCR configurations are presented 
in Table 2. The VR environments of open spaces with different 
STPV CCR configurations are presented in Table 3. 

Table 2. VR environment of private office with different STPV CCR 
configurations (South: drawn by the author) 

   
CCR,0% CCR,10% CCR,20% 

   
CCR,30% CCR,40% CCR,50% 

 

Table 3. VR environment of open space with different STPV CCR 
(South: drawn by the author) 

 

2.3 Measurement of occupants’ satisfaction between the 
physical environment and the virtual environment 
This study received institutional ethics approval, and all 

participants provided informed consent before VR 
participation. To mitigate potential evaluation biases arising 
from familiarity with the experimental setting or researchers, 
none of the participants was affiliated with the host 
institution or personally acquainted with the research team. 
All participants were recruited from the same campus, with a 
total of 45 participants (aged 23-44 years) taking part in the 
experiment. Post-hoc analysis indicates adequate statistical 
power for detected effects, though a priori power calculation 

 

CCR:0 

 

CCR :10% 

 

CCR:20% 

 

CCR :30% 

 

CCR:40% 

 

CCR :50% 

   
CCR,0% CCR,10% CCR,20% 

   
CCR,30% CCR,40% CCR,50% 



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

27 

 

was not conducted. The homogeneous sample (educated 
adults, single location) limits generalization across age 
groups, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels, 
requiring future validation in diverse populations. To validate 
the reliability and effectiveness of the virtual environment 
research methodology, the Igroup Presence Questionnaire 
(IPQ) was employed, as referenced in previous studies [18, 19, 
22-24]. This questionnaire measures differences in the visual 
sense of presence between real and virtual environments as 
follows: 

Igroup Presence Questionnaire for VR Environment Validation 
To what extent did the spatial experience in the virtual scene 
correspond to that of a real scene? 
1      2     3     4       5      6     7  
How aware were you of real-world visual surroundings while 
navigating the virtual environment? 
1     2     3     4       5      6       7  
How consistent was your visual experience in the virtual 
environment compared to real-world experience? 
1    2     3      4       5      6       7  
Level legends: 1, Strongly different / 7. Absolutely the same 

 
The obtained results were compared with IPQ scores using 
qualitative grading descriptions [25], as shown in Table 4. 

Table 4. Qualitative grading description of IPQ for VR environment 
valuation [23] 

Percentile Grade Adjective Acceptability 
≥ 90 A Excellent Acceptable 
≥ 80 B Very Good Acceptable 
≥ 70 C Satisfactory Acceptable 
≥ 60 D Marginal Marginally 

acceptable 
≥ 50 E Unsatisfactor

y 
Marginally 
acceptable 

＜ 50 F Unacceptable Not Acceptable 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.4 Measurement of occupants’ satisfaction for different 
STPV CCR 
Following the IPQ survey, a subsequent questionnaire 

was administered to assess occupant satisfaction levels 
regarding indoor lighting conditions and spatial perception 
under different CCR configurations. Subjective feedback was 
also collected to inform future research directions. The 
questionnaire was structured as follows: 

Questionnaire for Spatial Perception Assessment Based on STPV 
CCR  
Compared to the indoor daylight conditions and spatial quality of 
the CCR 0% (baseline) scenario, what is your satisfaction level 
with this STPV design? 
1     2    3     4      5      6      7  
What factors influenced your evaluation rating? 
Level legends: 1. Absolutely dissatisfied / 7. Very satisfied 

 

3. Results  

3.1 IPQ survey of private office and open space 
3.1.1 Analysis for the IPO value separately 

To evaluate the sense of presence among the 45 
participants in the virtual environment, the IPQ survey results 
examining four presence factors were analyzed. Statistical 
analysis for IPQ results in private offices is presented in Table 
5. Statistical analysis for IPQ results in open spaces is 
presented in Table 6. The total presence values for private 
offices (P total) and open spaces (O total) were 4.926 and 
4.904, respectively, on the 7-point Likert scale. Converting 
these values to percentages yielded 70.37% and 70.06%, 
respectively. Comparing these values with the IPQ thresholds 
in Table 4, both configurations achieved Grade C (Satisfactory, 
Acceptable), indicating that the VR environment evaluation 
results can be applied to equivalent physical environments. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Data analysis for the IPQ of a private office  

ITEMS Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 
Mean 

95% Confidence Interval of the 
Difference 

df Shapiro-Wilk 
Sig (N D ) 

Lower Upper 

Ptotal 4.92600 0.80070 0.11936 4.68544 5.16656 45 0.000162 
Pspatial 4.44444 1.17851 0.17568 4.09038 4.79851 45 0.005959 

Pinvolve 5.08889 1.01852 0.15183 4.78289 5.39488 45 0.000121 

Pexperience 5.24444 0.95716 0.14269 4.78289 5.39488 45 0.000003 

 

Table 6. Data analysis for IPQ of open space  

ITEMS Mean Std. 
Deviation 

Std. Error 
Mean 

95% Confidence Interval of the 
Difference 

df Shapiro-Wilk 
Sig (N D ) 

    Lower Upper   

O total 4.90444 0.74766 0.11146 4.67982 5.12907 45 0.0000400 
O spatial 

4.42222 1.05505 0.15728 4.10525 4.73919 45 0.0031410 
O involve 5.11111 0.85870 0.12801 4.85313 5.36909 45 0.0000030 
O experience 

5.17778 0.96032 0.14316 4.88926 5.46629 45 0.0000002 
 

 



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

28 

 

These IPQ scores exceed the 70% threshold established 
for architectural research applications and align with 
validation studies demonstrating that presence levels above 
70% correlate strongly with real-world perceptual responses 
in daylight and visual comfort assessments. The consistent 
presence values across both spatial typologies (difference < 
0.5%) ensure that satisfaction differences reflect actual 
spatial and CCR effects rather than varying immersion quality, 
validating the methodology for drawing conclusions 
equivalent to real-world settings in light perception and 
subjective satisfaction studies. 

3.1.2 Comparative analysis for the IPQ between private 
office and open space 
To ensure that differences in occupant satisfaction 

between private offices and open spaces were not influenced 
by varying VR immersion levels (as indicated by the Presence 
values P total and O total), a statistical comparison between 
the two IPQ values was necessary. The Total Difference value 
(D total) was calculated as follows: 

D total = O total - P total                 (1) 

Since the significance value (p = 0.019) of D total in the 
Shapiro-Wilk normality test was less than 0.05, indicating 
non-normal distribution, the parametric t-test requirements 
were not met. Therefore, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was 
employed for comparing P total and O total values, with 
results presented in Table 7. The asymptotic significance (2-
tailed) value of 0.862 exceeded 0.05, indicating that the 
difference between P total and O total was not statistically 
significant. Therefore, P total and O total values demonstrated 
equivalent presence levels, confirming that VR environment 
immersion was consistent across both private offices and 
open spaces. 

3.2 Analysis of occupant satisfaction with STPV CCR 
configurations 

3.2.1 Individual analysis of occupant satisfaction 
Following confirmation that total presence values 

showed no significant difference between private offices and 
open spaces, comparative analysis between the two spatial 
typologies was conducted, with results presented in Figure 2. 
For both spatial configurations, occupant satisfaction levels 
decreased as CCR increased. In private offices, mean 
satisfaction scores decreased from 5.11 (P 10%) to 3.00 (P 
50%), while in open spaces, values declined from 5.89 (O 
10%) to 3.22 (O 50%). Occupants demonstrated higher 
satisfaction levels in open spaces compared to private offices. 
Participants explained that they focused more attention on 
environmental details in smaller spaces, particularly the 
windows that connect indoor and outdoor visual experiences.  

3.2.2 Comparative analysis of occupant satisfaction 
between private offices and open spaces 
To validate the observed differences, a comprehensive 

statistical analysis was performed to examine the 
comparative values between the two spatial configurations. 
The analysis commenced with calculating the difference 
values between private offices and open spaces according to 
the following equations:  

D (10%) = O (10%) - P (10%)            (2) 

D (50%) = O (50%) - P (50%)           (3)  

Normality tests conducted for D (10%) through D (50%), as 
presented in Table 8, revealed significance (p) values below 
0.05 across all configurations, thereby precluding the 

application of parametric t-tests due to non-normal data 
distribution. Given the non-parametric nature of the data, 
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were subsequently employed for 
comparative analysis, with comprehensive descriptive 
statistics detailed in Table 9.  

Statistical significance test results, as documented in 
Table 10, demonstrate that while the O (50%) - P (50%) 
comparison yielded p > 0.05, all remaining comparisons 
produced p < 0.05, indicating statistically significant superior 
satisfaction levels in open spaces relative to private offices 
across CCR configurations ranging from 10% to 40%, with 
satisfaction convergence occurring at the 50% CCR threshold. 

 

Figure 2. The occupants’ satisfaction level with the private office and 
open space  

4. Discussion 

The methodological validation, achieving satisfactory 
presence levels (70.37% for private offices, 70.06% for open 
spaces), transcends conventional virtual reality applications 
by establishing epistemological foundations for architectural 
phenomenology research, fundamentally reconceptualizing 
how environmental perception can be systematically 
investigated within controlled experimental paradigms. 
Contemporary systematic reviews confirm that immersive 
virtual environments demonstrate exceptional effectiveness 
in occupant comfort and adaptive behavior research, 
providing controlled laboratory circumstances that enable 
systematic environmental manipulations impossible in real 
occupied buildings [26]. This achievement represents a 
paradigmatic shift from positivist measurement approaches 
toward phenomenological inquiry methodologies that 
acknowledge the embodied nature of spatial experience, 
challenging traditional boundaries between physical and 
virtual environmental cognition research while establishing 
new epistemological frameworks for understanding 
occupant-environment interactions that transcend the 
limitations of both reductionist laboratory studies and 
uncontrolled field observations.The observed satisfaction 
degradation pattern as CCR increases provides quantitative 
evidence for establishing design thresholds in STPV 
implementation. Specifically, the convergence threshold at 
50% CCR suggests that beyond this point, spatial typology 
becomes irrelevant to occupant satisfaction, indicating a 
universal limit for human environmental tolerance. This 
finding has profound implications for building codes and 
design standards, as it establishes an empirically-derived 
upper boundary for STPV cell coverage that maintains 
acceptable occupant comfort levels regardless of spatial 
configuration.  



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

29 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These empirically derived satisfaction thresholds and 
spatial typology effects provide critical foundations for next-
generation smart building technologies. The quantified CCR-
satisfaction relationships can inform automated building 
control algorithms that balance energy generation with 
occupant comfort in real-time, while the identified 50% 
convergence threshold offers a universal constraint for 
adaptive STPV systems. Furthermore, the differential 
satisfaction patterns across spatial typologies enable context-
sensitive optimization algorithms that can personalize 
environmental control based on space configuration, 
advancing user-centered photovoltaic integration in 
intelligent building management systems. 

The differential satisfaction patterns observed across 
spatial typologies illuminate fundamental principles of 
environmental psychology that extend beyond superficial 
design preferences toward deeper questions of human 
territoriality, cognitive load distribution, and attention 
restoration mechanisms within technologically mediated 
environments. Recent experimental investigations 
demonstrate that optimal visible light transmittance for STPV 
systems varies significantly depending on spatial context and 
occupant psychological responses measured through virtual 
reality methodologies, with satisfaction levels showing 
pronounced sensitivity to both transparency characteristics 
and environmental settings. This finding challenges 
deterministic approaches to sustainable building design by 
demonstrating that technological interventions interact with 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

spatial cognition through complex psychosocial mechanisms 
that cannot be reduced to simple visual comfort metrics, 
thereby necessitating holistic design philosophies that 
recognize the co-constitutive relationship between built 
environments and human consciousness rather than treating 
occupants as passive recipients of environmental stimuli. 
The convergence threshold phenomenon at 50% CCR reveals 
universal limits of human environmental tolerance that 
transcend cultural and spatial boundaries, establishing 
theoretical foundations for sustainable building design that 
acknowledge fundamental anthropological constraints on 
technological integration. Contemporary workplace research 
confirms that office spatial typology fundamentally influences 
occupant cognitive and aesthetic appraisal, with design 
parameters including ceiling height, partition configuration, 
and spatial contour creating measurable impacts on 
environmental satisfaction that extend beyond traditional 
privacy-communication trade-offs [27]. Contemporary 
research utilizing cadmium-telluride thin-film photovoltaic 
technologies confirms that psychological satisfaction exhibits 
consistent inverse relationships with reduced visible light 
transmittance [28]. This study focused exclusively on 
occupant satisfaction metrics without measuring actual 
photovoltaic performance parameters such as power output 
or thermal characteristics, limiting its utility for 
comprehensive energy-comfort optimization. Furthermore, 
office layout typology research demonstrates that spatial 
configuration significantly influences user satisfaction and 

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of P total and O total in Two related samples Wilcoxon test 

 

N Mean 

Std. 

Deviation Min Max Percentiles 

      25th 50th (Median) 75th 

P total 45 4.9260 0.80070 2.00 6.33 4.6700 5.0000 5.3300 

O total 45 4.9044 0.74766 2.00 6.33 4.6700 5.0000 5.3300 

 

Table 8. The test of normality for the differences in occupants’ satisfaction between private offices and open space  

 D (10%) D (20%) D (30%) D (40%) D (50%) 

Sig 0.0000004 0.0000002 0.0001549 0.0000049 0.0000009 

 

Table 9. The test of normality for the differences in occupants’ satisfaction between private offices and open space 

 N Mean 
Std. 
Deviation Min Max 

Percentiles 

25th 50th (Median) 75th 

P (10%) 
45 5.1111 1.66818 1.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 

P (20%) 
45 4.1333 1.65968 1.00 6.00 3.50 5.00 5.00 

P (30%) 
45 3.7778 1.73059 1.00 6.00 2.50 5.00 5.00 

P (40%) 
45 3.5111 1.63237 1.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 

P (50%) 
45 3.0000 1.39805 1.00 5.00 1.50 3.00 4.00 

O (10%) 
45 5.8889 1.96818 1.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 

O (20%) 
45 5.2667 1.92354 1.00 7.00 4.50 6.00 7.00 

O (30%) 
45 4.4222 2.02809 1.00 7.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 

O (40%) 
45 3.9111 1.89284 1.00 7.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 

O (50%) 
45 3.2222 1.69074 1.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 

  



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

30 

 

comfort through circulation patterns and spatial accessibility 
that interact with technological interventions in complex 
ways [29]. These convergent findings establish philosophical 
foundations for sustainable architecture that balances 
environmental performance with fundamental human needs 
for visual connection, spatial autonomy, and psychological 
comfort within the built environment. The study's limitation 
to Chengdu restricts global applicability, as cultural lighting 
preferences and climate conditions may influence STPV 
satisfaction differently across regions. Validation across 
diverse cultural and climatic contexts is needed before 
generalizing these CCR thresholds globally. 

5. Conclusion 

This experimental investigation verified occupant 
satisfaction differences between private offices and open 
spaces under varying CCR configurations of crystalline silicon 
STPV systems using advanced virtual reality technology. The 
research framework encompassed four comprehensive 
objectives: 
(1) Evaluation of occupant responses regarding presence 
perception between physical and virtual environments across 
both private offices and open spaces. 
(2) Comparative assessment of occupant presence responses 
within virtual environments between distinct spatial 
typologies.  
(3) Quantitative analysis of occupant satisfaction levels under 
various STPV CCR configurations within virtual office 
environments. 
(4) Comprehensive comparison of occupant satisfaction 
responses across five CCR variations (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 
and 50%) between private offices and open spaces within 
virtual environments.  
A comprehensive analysis of experimental findings reveals 
several significant outcomes: 
IPQ assessments of virtual environment presence achieved 
“Satisfactory” levels across both private offices and open 
spaces, thereby validating VR methodology applicability for 
occupant satisfaction surveys in scenarios where physical 
environment access remains challenging or impractical. 
Statistical validation through Shapiro-Wilk normality testing 
and Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis confirmed equivalent 
presence effects between private offices and open spaces on 
occupant perception, establishing consistent baseline 
conditions for comparative satisfaction assessment. Occupant 
satisfaction demonstrated a consistent inverse correlation 
with increasing CCR values across both spatial configurations, 
indicating systematic degradation of visual comfort as 
photovoltaic cell coverage intensifies. Comparative 
satisfaction analysis revealed significantly higher occupant 
preference for open spaces across CCR configurations ranging 
from 10% to 40%, with satisfaction convergence occurring at 
50% CCR between both spatial typologies, as statistically 
confirmed through Shapiro-Wilk normality and Wilcoxon 
signed-rank testing protocols. The research demonstrates 
methodological innovation and theoretical contribution 
through: (i) development of accessible VR environment 
creation protocols utilizing Rhinoceros and ClimateStudio 
platforms for non-specialist implementation; (ii) 
comprehensive virtual environment experimentation 
combined with rigorous IPQ validation methodology for STPV 
CCR assessment; and (iii) pioneering investigation of 
comparative STPV performance evaluation across diverse 
architectural contexts. While the investigation presents 
significant methodological advancement, several limitations 
warrant future research attention: (i) the scope remained 

confined to c-Si STPV systems with characteristic visual 
properties, necessitating expanded investigation of thin-film 
STPV technologies with subtle visual characteristics; and (ii) 
the assessment framework concentrated exclusively on 
satisfaction metrics without incorporating task performance 
evaluation, which constitutes a critical factor in office space 
functionality assessment. This investigation establishes 
foundational methodology for occupant satisfaction 
evaluation across diverse STPV CCR configurations within 
varied office environments, providing a framework for future 
comprehensive research incorporating expanded STPV 
typologies and environmental variables. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethical issue 
The authors are aware of and comply with best practices in 
publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. The authors adhere to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
The manuscript contains all the data. However, more data will 
be available upon request from the authors. 

Conflict of interest 
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. 

References 
[1] Elsadek, M., B. Liu, and J. Xie, Window view and 

relaxation: Viewing green space from a high-rise 
estate improves urban dwellers’ wellbeing. Urban 
forestry & urban greening, 2020. 55: p. 
126846.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.1268
46 

[2] Maghrabie, H.M., et al., Building-integrated 
photovoltaic/thermal (BIPVT) systems: Applications 
and challenges. Sustainable energy technologies and 
assessments, 2021. 45: p. 
101151.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.10115
1 

[3] Jung, S., et al., Optimal planning of a rooftop PV 
system using GIS-based reinforcement learning. 
Applied Energy, 2021. 298: p. 
117239.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.1
17239 

[4] Razeghi, M., et al., Evaluating the economic impact of 
solar energy on local industries in Semnan, Iran. 
Future Sustainability, 2025. 3(1): p. 49-
58.http://dx.doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.3.1.5 

Abbreviations  

BIPV Building-integrated photovoltaic 

CCR Cell coverage ratio 

c-Si Crystalline silicon 

HMD Head-mounted display 

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality 

IPQ Igroup Presence Questionnaire 

PV Photovoltaic 

SHGC Solar heat gain coefficient 

STPV Semi-transparent photovoltaic 

VLT Visible light transmittance 

VR Virtual reality 



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

31 

 

[5] Mohamadkhani, M., F. Kowsary, and M. Ghasemi, 
Techno-economic assessment of fixed solar panels 
and sun-tracking technology in solar farms in the 
districts of Tehran and Qazvin in Iran. Future Energy, 
2023. 2(3): p. 29-
37.http://dx.doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fuen.2.3.4 

[6] Chinazzo, G., et al. Energy performance and 
occupancy-based analysis of visual and thermal 
comfort for transmittance level and layout variations 
of semi-transparent photovoltaics. in Building 
Simulation 2019. 2019. 
IBPSA.http://dx.doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2019.2
10262 

[7] Setyantho, G.R., H. Park, and S. Chang, Multi-criteria 
performance assessment for semi-transparent 
photovoltaic windows in different climate contexts. 
Sustainability, 2021. 13(4): p. 
2198.http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13042198 

[8] Mangkuto, R.A., M. Rohmah, and A.D. Asri, Design 
optimisation for window size, orientation, and wall 
reflectance with regard to various daylight metrics 
and lighting energy demand: A case study of buildings 
in the tropics. Applied energy, 2016. 164: p. 211-
219.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.0
46 

[9] Yu, G., et al., A review on developments and 
researches of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) 
windows and shading blinds. Renewable and 
sustainable energy reviews, 2021. 149: p. 
111355.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.11135
5 

[10] Fan, Z., Z. Yang, and L. Yang, Daylight performance 
assessment of atrium skylight with integrated semi-
transparent photovoltaic for different climate zones 
in China. Building and Environment, 2021. 190: p. 
107299.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.1
07299 

[11] Sudan, M. and G. Tiwari, Daylighting and energy 
performance of a building for composite climate: An 
experimental study. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 
2016. 55(4): p. 3091-
3100.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.014 

[12] Luo, Y., et al., A comparative study on thermal 
performance evaluation of a new double skin façade 
system integrated with photovoltaic blinds. Applied 
energy, 2017. 199: p. 281-
293.http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.02
6 

[13] Ghosh, A., et al., Visual comfort analysis of semi-
transparent perovskite based building integrated 
photovoltaic window for hot desert climate (Riyadh, 
Saudi Arabia). Energies, 2021. 14(4): p. 
1043.http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14041043 

[14] Kamaruzzaman, S.N., et al., Occupants’ satisfaction 
toward building environmental quality: structural 
equation modeling approach. Environmental 
monitoring and assessment, 2015. 187: p. 1-
21.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4447-0 

[15] Li, X., et al., Optimal design of inhomogeneous semi-
transparent photovoltaic windows based on daylight 
performance and visual characters. Energy and 
Buildings, 2023. 283: p. 
112808.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.11
2808 

[16] Xu, M., et al., State-of-the-art in 360 video/image 
processing: Perception, assessment and compression. 

IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 
2020. 14(1): p. 5-
26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSTSP.2020.2966864 

[17] Hong, T., et al., Occupant responses on satisfaction 
with window size in physical and virtual built 
environments. Building and Environment, 2019. 166: 
p. 
106409.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.1
06409 

[18] Yeom, S., et al., Determining the optimal visible light 
transmittance of semi-transparent photovoltaic 
considering energy performance and occupants’ 
satisfaction. Building and Environment, 2023. 231: p. 
110042.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.1
10042 

[19] Chen, Z., N. Utaberta, and T.E. Seghier, Optimal Semi-
Transparent Photovoltaic (STPV) window based on 
energy performance, daylighting quality, and 
occupant satisfaction–A case study of private office in 
Chengdu China. Energy and Buildings, 2024. 319: p. 
114502.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.11
4502 

[20] MOHURD, Standard for design of office building JGJ/T 
67-2019. China, 
2019.https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/zhengce
/zhengcefilelib/202004/20200403_244786.html 

[21] MOHURD, Design standard for energy efficiency of 
public buildings. 
2015.https://www.codeofchina.com/standard/GB50
189-2015.html 

[22] Berto, R., Exposure to restorative environments helps 
restore attentional capacity. Journal of environmental 
psychology, 2005. 25(3): p. 249-
259.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001 

[23] Markwart, H., et al., Warning messages to modify 
safety behavior during crisis situations: a virtual 
reality study. International journal of disaster risk 
reduction, 2019. 38: p. 
101235.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.1012
35 

[24] George, C., P. Tamunjoh, and H. Hussmann, Invisible 
boundaries for vr: Auditory and haptic signals as 
indicators for real world boundaries. IEEE 
Transactions on Visualization and Computer 
Graphics, 2020. 26(12): p. 3414-
3422.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.302360
7 

[25] Melo, M., G. Gonçalves, and M. Bessa, How much 
presence is enough? qualitative scales for 
interpreting the igroup presence questionnaire score. 
IEEE Access, 2023. 11: p. 24675-
24685.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3254
892 

[26] Alamirah, H., M. Schweiker, and E. Azar, Immersive 
virtual environments for occupant comfort and 
adaptive behavior research–A comprehensive review 
of tools and applications. Building and Environment, 
2022. 207: p. 
108396.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.1
08396 

[27] Gath-Morad, M., et al., Designing affective workplace 
environments: The impact of typology, contour, 
ceiling and partition height on cognitive and aesthetic 
appraisal. Building and Environment, 2024. 265: p. 
111928.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.1
11928 



Z. Chen et al. /Future Technology                                    November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 24-32                      

32 

 

[28] Yeom, S., et al., Analyzing the optimal visible light 
transmittance of thin-film photovoltaic using 
experiment with virtual reality and economic 
assessment. Energy and Buildings, 2023. 296: p. 
113380.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.11
3380 

[29] Mustafa, F.A. and S.A. Azeez, Role of office layout 
typology in saving time and distance spent by users: 
Case of office buildings in Erbil city. Ain Shams 
Engineering Journal, 2022. 13(5): p. 
101742.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.10174
2 

 

  

This article is an open-access article distributed under the 

terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

(CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

