Skip to main content
Login | Suomeksi | På svenska | In English

Browsing by Subject "regulation"

Sort by: Order: Results:

  • Johansson, Anna (2018)
    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.
  • Stolt, Miira (2024)
    While using fireworks is a common seasonal tradition in Finland, it is accompanied with serious risks, such as injuries and fires. Thus, in 2018 a citizens’ initiative Rajat räiskeelle aimed to prohibit most firework-types from consumers. Despite being rejected by the Parliament, the initiative sparked an official investigation on how to decrease firework-related harm in Finland. This thesis continues to focus on the public’s stance on fireworks by studying the current controversy of fireworks in Finland through (I) the issues that are perceived as the most prominent by those, who oppose fireworks in consumers’ use and (II) inspects different measures with which to address the raised concerns, with the goal of mitigating them. My first research question’s data comes from 11 Finnish online news articles’ comment sections, that I sourced with the search term “rajat räiskeelle”. With inductive thematic analysis on the comments against private firework use, emerging themes indicate the main issues associated with the practice of using fireworks. The second research question is answered with previous literature, research, and existing regulations. Pierce and Turner’s insights on environmental pollution control (1990) as well as Lascoumes and Le Galés’ research on policy instruments implementations effects in societies (2007) provide the theoretical framework that guides this research. I identified (1) community disruption, (2) health and safety concerns, (3) regulatory issues, (4) environmental concerns, and (5) negative effects on animals to be the most prominent themes for objecting to fireworks in consumer-use, with human-related issues in the centre of interest for Finns. From the studied mitigation measures of standards, taxes, prohibition, subsidies, education, and labels and symbols, the combination of standards and education in different forms appear to hold most potential in addressing harm from fireworks. This indicates that regulative instruments are not sufficient alone to prevent fireworks’ harm, but that non-regulative measures, like educational campaigns, are needed as well. My findings also indicate country-specific variations in the motivations for opposing fireworks among the public, as well as among the background reasons that prompt authorities to restrict citizens’ access to and use of fireworks. This suggests that a mix of characteristics, unique to Finland, should be considered when planning for a successful mitigation of harm from consumer-fireworks.