Avoiding overly bright future: The systems intelligence perspective on the management of light pollution
Introduction
The Earth is facing different but intertwined environmental changes caused by various anthropogenic driving forces. The increase of night-time artificial light is perhaps the most easily observable global environmental change, but it has received relatively little public and scholarly attention. Over the past century natural darkness has disappeared from almost all inhabited regions. Based on information derived from night-time satellite pictures taken during 1996–1997, Cinzano et al. (2001) estimated that one fifth of the global land surface was above the threshold of light-polluted status (coloured areas in Fig. 1).
In 2007, Victor and Ausubel (2007) presented maps illustrating how bright the night would look like if everyone in the world emitted light equalling the median per capita upward flux of artificial light of U.S. citizens. These maps suggested a potential for an unprecedented increase in light emissions from densely populated developing countries, particularly in South and East Asia. However, Victor and Ausubel (2007: 77) concluded with a techno-optimistic outlook: “Fortunately, more efficient illumination will surely lower the wasteful emission of light and the energy to produce it long before everyone lives like present Americans.”
Based on more recent data, this optimism was at least partially unfounded. For example, analysis of satellite data indicate that, in China, the percentage of land surface area with increasing brightness rose from 2.1% between the periods of 1992–1996 and 2000–2004 to 5.6% between the periods of 2000–2004 and 2008–2012 (Han et al., 2014). In many countries the use of light has increased together with the increase of economic affluence, and in some countries the increase in light emissions outpaces economic growth (Ghosh et al., 2013, Elvidge et al., 2014). Global aggregated emissions continue to increase, but in some industrialised countries the emissions appear to be stabilising or even decreasing, and several Eastern European countries have faced a considerable decrease in light emissions following the collapse of the Soviet Union (Bennie et al., 2014, Cauwels et al., 2014).
Professional and amateur astronomers have repeatedly attempted to bring attention to light pollution. Over the past years, the issue of light pollution has been brought up by various campaigns such as UNESCO's Starlight (2007) and Globe at Night (2015), web-pages (e.g. IDA, 2015), TV-documents (e.g. Cheney, 2011), YouTube videos (e.g. SciShow, 2014), articles in popular magazines (e.g. Owen, 2007), books (e.g. Cinzano, 1996; Posch et al., 2010; Mizon, 2012; IDA, 2012; Bogard, 2013; Lyytimäki and Rinne, 2013a; Meier et al., 2015), scholarly commentaries (e.g. Smith, 2009; Gaston, 2013), and even fictional TV-series such as The Simpsons (2003). Despite these, and other activities, public awareness about light pollution is not yet widespread (e.g. Falchi et al., 2011; Wong et al., 2014). Stringent abatement policies are rarely implemented, with exceptions in some countries such as Italy (Falchi, 2011) or Slovenia (Morgan-Taylor, 2015) and locations near important astronomic observations sites, nature protection areas, or dark-sky tourist destinations (Luginbuhl et al., 2009; Rodrigues et al., 2015).
Light pollution is a nascent research field but the existing knowledge base is already sufficient to justify planning and management actions aimed at reducing light pollution (Falchi et al., 2011, Kyba et al., 2014, Olsen et al., 2014). In addition to “astronomical light pollution” affecting the night sky, the concepts such as “photopollution” (Verheijen, 1985) or, more recently, “ecological light pollution” (Longcore and Rich, 2004) have been coined to highlight the effects of artificial light on nocturnal nature and human health. Even very weak and temporary artificial light can disturb organisms that are adapted to natural levels and cycles of light. Documented cases include various effects on terrestrial and marine organism, as well as avifauna (Rich and Longcore, 2006, Gaston et al., 2014). Most of the knowledge on the topic concerns individual level effects, with only a few studies on ecosystem-level effects having been published (Davies et al., 2013, Gaston et al., 2013), meaning that the effects on ecosystem services remain largely unstudied (Lyytimäki, 2013). Moreover, little is known about the long-term cumulative effects of light pollution and other environmental changes such as climate change.
The negative effects related to night-time light use are not self-evident for day-active species such as humans. Artificial light is perceived through various heuristics with strong positive connotations (Hukkinen and Huutoniemi, 2014), and commercial lights in particular are perceived as an indication of economic progress, welfare, and positive development more generally (Lyytimäki et al., 2012, Edensor, 2015). Bright security lights may also give a feeling of control and safety, even when they do not improve security or reduce crime (Marchant, 2011).
The starting point for this article is the key role of individual actors, and the importance of local level activity and bottom-up approaches in solving the pressing environmental problems of our times (Lane and McDonald, 2005, Baker and Mehmood, 2015). This article uses light pollution as a case study to look at the role of individual human actors in the management of (global) environmental changes. The aim is to analyse what kind of household-level actions to combat light pollution are already in use, and to discuss the relevancy of these actions. Systems intelligence is proposed as a promising approach for the management of light pollution. The paper is structured as follows: first, based on the data gathered via an online survey, the repertoire of voluntary household-level light pollution abatement activities in Finland is reviewed. This data also allows for an analysis of public perceptions of the potential for individual human actor to influence and manage large-scale environmental changes. Second, the concept of systems intelligence is employed to discuss the role of individual actors in environmental planning and management, and finally, conclusions regarding environmental management aiming to connect individual human actions with the functioning of large and complex socio-ecological systems are made.
Section snippets
Material
Data for this study originates from an online survey that aimed to chart public opinions about the loss of darkness and light pollution. The Finnish context of the survey is important to note when interpreting the results. Finland is a sparsely populated and relatively recently industrialised Nordic country that has small but extensively illuminated cities. Urban areas cover only about 4% of the land area while sparsely populated rural areas cover 68.3% of the land area (see Helminen et al.
Results: actions against light pollution
Relatively many respondents stated that they do not have any possibility to make an impact of light pollution (N=103) or that they are completely unaware of possible actions (N=13). Over a hundred (N=117) respondents stated that they had not taken any action without giving a specific reason for inactivity. A few (N=14) noted that they did not consider light pollution to be a problem requiring personal activity. The respondents generally considered their potential to influence the overall light
The concept of systems intelligence
Outdoor lighting can be considered to be a holistic system that includes different technologies, infrastructures, human actions, interests and values, as well as constantly changing natural conditions. Light pollution is one characteristic of this system. The survey responses commonly indicated a perception that the light pollution situation in Finland is worsening and that effective measures for tackling the problem are lacking. Thus, the results from our survey, as well as insights from
Conclusions: avoiding overly bright future
Inclusion of individual level determinants and dynamics of human action is needed in the management of light pollution since the lighting decisions of private persons make a significant contribution to the timing, amount and quality of light emissions. Moreover, citizens influence lighting systems indirectly through contacts with planners and through democratic institutions more generally, as well as through consumer choices. The concept of systems intelligence highlights that the bottom-up
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. This research is based on paper presented at the conference Future Infinite Academic: Sustainable futures in a changing climate, Wanha Satama, Helsinki, Finland. 11 June 2014.
References (72)
- et al.
Limiting the impact of light pollution on human health, environment and stellar visibility
J. Environ. Manag.
(2011) - et al.
Beyond unsustainable eco-innovation: the role of narratives in the evolution of the lighting sector
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
(2015) Nature's nocturnal services: light pollution as a non-recognised challenge for ecosystem services research and management
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2013)- et al.
Unawareness in environmental protection: the case of light pollution from traffic
Land Use Policy
(2012) - et al.
Early adopters enhancing diffusion of small-scale sustainable energy solutions
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2015) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(1995)Laadullinen Tutkimus 2.0
(2012)- et al.
Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places
Local Environ.
(2015) - et al.
Contrasting trends in light pollution across Europe based on satellite observed night time lights
Sci. Rep.
(2014) The end of the night
Searching for Natural Darkness in an Age of Artificial Light
(2013)