We all know ‘smart’ cities bring real benefits to urban spaces. But how can adaptive lighting create safer as well as more sustainable cities?
In city planning circles, ‘smart’, we all know, has become something of a buzzword. We want smart homes, smart transport, smart infrastructure – and of course, smart lighting.
It’s all part of a vision where technology, data, and intelligent systems quietly work in the background to make our lives safer, greener, and more efficient.
But, as smart ambitions grow, so do the questions from those tasked with making them happen. One we hear more often, especially when it comes to adaptive lighting, is: does the data tell the whole story? And perhaps more importantly: what happens when the numbers don’t line up with how people actually feel?
Let’s be honest, on paper adaptive lighting makes a lot of sense. But city streets aren’t just spreadsheets. They’re lived-in, emotional spaces. So, how do we navigate that?
WHAT IS ADAPTIVE LIGHTING – REALLY?
At its core (as most ILP members will be well aware), adaptive lighting is a system that allows lighting levels to change dynamically, usually in response to traffic or pedestrian movement, time of night, or environmental factors.
In other words, rather than sticking to a rigid schedule, lights can dim when streets are quiet and brighten when activity increases.
It’s an idea built of course on data: traffic flow, road usage, patterns of behaviour. And, for many cities, it promises exactly what municipalities need – reduced energy bills, lower maintenance costs, and progress toward carbon goals. But, for every city that’s excited about the tech, there’s another one hesitating. And that hesitation usually comes not from the numbers but from people.
NUMBERS VERSUS THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
We often talk about the quantitative benefits of smart cities and adaptive lighting – how much energy is saved, how many tonnes of CO₂ are avoided, how many hours of maintenance are reduced. And those figures are genuinely impressive.
But we rarely spend as much time on the qualitative questions. Questions such as: how does lighting make someone feel when they’re walking home at night? Do we understand why some communities push back against dimming? What’s the cost of a decision that feels clever on a dashboard but cold on the ground?
Take Suffolk County Council as an example. It’s recently implemented our smart street lighting system. This gives the council the ability both to dim and brighten lighting dynamically.
That flexibility allows it, of course, to adapt to real-world scenarios. If there’s a crash, a community event, or increased night-time activity, it can light the area up fully. If the streets are quiet in the early hours, the lighting can be dimmed appropriately to save energy.
Crucially, it’s not about blindly dimming everything but about responding to context and local need. With our solution in place, Suffolk has the tools to strike a balance between operational efficiency and community reassurance. Yet, even then, building public trust has not come automatically. People don’t always care about wattage or system uptime – they care about feeling safe. And that’s harder to measure.
NOT ALL DATA IS EQUAL
There’s a tendency in tech circles to assume that more data leads to better decisions. But in reality, data is just a mirror – it reflects what’s happening, but not necessarily why it matters.
In lighting, we might know the number of cars passing a junction, or the average pedestrian count after 10 pm. But what we often miss is the lived experience of that environment. Maybe that junction is a shortcut teenagers use to get home.
Maybe there’s a bus stop nearby without shelter. Maybe it’s near a late-night takeaway that attracts foot traffic sporadically. Data rarely captures that sort of nuance.
This is where qualitative insight matters. Local knowledge, community feedback, even anecdotal evidence – all of it plays a role in shaping lighting strategies that actually work for the people who use the space. So perhaps the challenge for cities isn’t just to be data-driven, but to be data-aware – to use data as a guide, not a gospel.
A CONVERSATION, NOT A CONCLUSION
Too often, smart city solutions are presented as end points: plug them in, and they’ll fix the problem. But infrastructure – especially public infrastructure – is inherently emotional.
Street lighting is one of the most visible, shared assets a city has. People notice it. They feel it. And they talk about it when something changes.
Which means that decisions around adaptive lighting need to be part of an ongoing conversation. Not just between engineers and suppliers, but between councils and communities.
It’s okay to start small. Pilot schemes, community consultations, trials in areas where data and lived experience align – these all help build confidence. Equally, it’s okay to say ‘not yet’ if a particular street, neighbourhood, or population isn’t ready. Smart doesn’t have to be hurried.
THE HUMAN SIDE OF FLEXIBILITY
The real promise of adaptive lighting, in our view, isn’t just in energy graphs or control dashboards. It’s in flexibility – in having the tools to respond to different needs across different times and places. Sometimes that means dimming. Sometimes that means going full brightness.
Sometimes that means leaving a light on, even when the numbers suggest you don’t need to – because someone, somewhere, feels safer that way. That’s the power of being smart with intent.
Not just letting data drive the car, but keeping a hand on the wheel and asking: what’s right for this community?
IS IT WORTH THE INVESTMENT?
It’s a fair question. And the answer, as with most things in infrastructure, is it depends on your goals, your context, your community.
If your city is focused on sustainability, looking to reduce longterm costs, and willing to engage with public concerns, then adaptive lighting can be a valuable step forward.
If your priority, however, is public confidence, and there’s resistance to change, then it might not be the right moment.
But what we believe – wholeheartedly – is that smart lighting should never be about chasing a trend. It should be about giving cities more control, not less. About empowering better decisions, not removing the human element. Because, if there’s one thing data can’t tell us, it’s what kind of city we want to live in. That choice still belongs to us.
Articles sourced from Lighting Journal (https://flickread.com/edition/html/index.php?pdf=6810e7b1a1059#1), authored by David Orchard.