Valosaaste Etelä-Karjalassa : yksityishenkilöiden näkemykset sekä kuntien ja metsäteollisuusyritysten valaistusratkaisut

Artificial light that produces some adverse effects is called light pollution. Light pollution has only recently been recognized as an environmental problem – it has been noticed to have adverse effects to organisms, ecosystems, human health and their well-being. The purpose of this study is to combine two aspects of light pollution that have so far gained little attention: the public’s point of view and the lighting solutions of municipalities and forest industry enterprises. These two aspects can be connected to each other through a concept called condition of lighting. Here the conditions of lighting consist of three areas with notable differences in lighting: city centers, countryside and forest industry production plants along with their surroundings. The study was conducted in South Karelia, Finland, and it was divided into two sections. The first section dealt with the public’s point of view on light pollution. The objective was to find out how South Karelians perceive the effects and obtrusiveness of artificial light both generally and also within areas of differing conditions of lighting. In addition, the intention was to uncover other factors that might influence the opinions of people. The second section of the study concerned the lighting solutions of municipalities and forest industry enterprises. The objective was to examine their lighting planning and implementation as well as the role of light pollution in the process. Interview was selected as the method of research in both sections of the study. The public considered electronic billboards and car headlights as the most obtrusive sources of light pollution. Bright lights and glare, on the other hand, were considered the most obtrusive types of light pollution. Most valued benefits of artificial light were its influence on safety, crime prevention and its positive effect on mood. Not being able to see the stars or experience natural darkness were considered as the biggest disadvantages of artificial light. The conditions of lighting in different areas also influenced the respondents’ experiences: people living in the countryside did not feel insecure in dark places outside the cities and did not consider abundant lighting pleasant. They also felt that being able to experience natural darkness was important. Among other factors, nature orientedness, light sensitivity, environmental attitudes and gender strongly affected the views of the respondents. In the municipalities and forest industry enterprises, the lighting planning concentrated on territorial plans. All but one of the municipalities and enterprises had taken light pollution into consideration at some level at least, but the forms and means varied. In the future both municipalities and forest industry enterprises will invest more in LED technology. The results show that artificial light can cause inconvenience to people who live outside the brightly lighted areas and who were not particularly interested in light pollution. Behind the inconvenience and disturbance were mostly the experiences, habits, values and attitudes of the respondents. The municipalities and enterprises have a lot to improve when it comes to light pollution. They should, for example, invest in comprehensive lighting planning, avoid over-illumination and pay attention to suitable direction and positioning of the light fixtures. In the future, it is important to examine the public’s opinion and to map the landscape of lights at a local scale. This would help in finding the most suitable lighting solutions for different areas. In the opinion polls, the subjective characteristics affecting the views of the respondents should be taken into consideration. Research regarding the municipalities and enterprises should be directed to the areas where light pollution is not regulated, in order to gather information on motivation and implementation of the voluntary activities reducing light pollution.