Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2020
Vol. 63, No. 14, 2627–2645, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1742675
Managing light pollution through dark sky areas: learning from the
world’s first dark sky preserve
Daniel A. Silvera and Gordon M. Hickeyb
a
School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; bDepartment of Natural
Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
(Received 3 July 2019; final version received 10 March 2020)
The designation of dark sky areas (DSAs) is an increasingly popular regulatory tool
for mitigating light pollution in rural communities with tourism-based economies.
However, there is a lack of empirical evidence available on how the DSA model
functions in practice, including the opportunities, challenges and controversies that
can arise. Focusing on the world’s first permanent DSA, the Torrance Barrens Dark
Sky Preserve in Muskoka, Ontario, Canada, we examine the stakeholder dynamics
involved in DSA establishment and management. Using key informant interviews
and survey research, our case study analysis illustrates the nuances of regulating
light, showing how various socio-political barriers to light pollution abatement
were (or were not) overcome through sustained ‘dark sky activism’. The findings
inform management strategies for reducing light pollution, while also providing
practical information for environmental planners and managers of DSA
communities. Future research needs are also identified.
Keywords: light pollution; public policy and planning; resource management;
recreation; protected areas
1. Introduction
Excessive nighttime light, also referred to as light pollution, negatively affects human
health (Chepesiuk 2009), can harm wildlife and ecological systems by disrupting animals’ circadian rhythm and behavior (Navara and Nelson 2007), and wastes massive
amounts of energy (Olsen, Gallaway, and Mitchell 2013; Stone 2017). It also degrades
the night sky, an important cultural and aesthetic resource (Pedani 2004; Riegel 1973).
In 2001, researchers estimated that more than two-thirds of the American population
was unable to view the Milky Way, considered a staple cosmic feature (Cinzano,
Falchi, and Elvidge 2001; Falchi et al. 2016). Unintended illumination (‘light trespass’), illumination of the night sky (‘sky glow’), and disruptive and discomforting
illumination (‘glare’) are the major classes of light pollution (Lighting Research Center
2007), all of which can be effectively mitigated with inexpensive alterations in lighting
practices and technology (Rogers and Sovic 2001; Gallaway 2010; Shaw 2014;
J€agerbrand 2015; Kyba et al. 2017). In particular, ‘full cut-off fixtures’ prevent light
from emitting above the horizontal plane, directing light photons only to the intended
space and not into the night sky (Lighting Research Center 2007; Stone 2017). Yet,
despite an increasing number of studies demonstrating its negative effects, light
Corresponding author. Email: daniel.silver2@mail.mcgill.ca
ß 2020 Newcastle University
2628
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
pollution has continued to rise globally by all measures (Olsen, Gallaway, and
Mitchell 2013; Rodrigues, Rodrigues, and Peroff 2014; Stone 2017).
The relatively easy availability of inexpensive solutions to light pollution, combined with the steady increase in light pollution levels internationally, suggest that barriers to its correction are more socio-political than technical (Gallaway 2010; H€olker
et al. 2010; Stone 2017). Indeed, beyond calls to reduce energy consumption, political
urgency for light pollution abatement has been generally lacking (H€olker et al. 2010;
Krause 2015). Previous research suggests that efforts to mitigate light pollution are
hindered by the controversial nature of regulating light, as well as a lack of successful
cases involving light regulation from which regulatory bodies can model policies
(Stone 2017; Meier 2019). Olsen, Gallaway, and Mitchell (2013) noted the need for
greater research on light pollution to inform environmental planning and management.
Despite considerable scholarship advocating for the establishment of lighting regulatory frameworks in different contexts (e.g. Aubrecht et al. 2010; H€olker et al. 2010;
Lyytim€aki and Rinne 2013; Morgan-Taylor 2015; Stone 2017), there is a lack of
empirical case-based evidence that can inform existing models for light regulation.
Further, as noted by Lyytim€aki and Rinne (2013), Stone (2017), Meier (2019), and
others, there remains a need to understand the attitudes and perceptions of local people
regarding light pollution and light regulation in different settings. Such information
may be useful for identifying workable regulatory approaches (H€olker et al. 2010).
This paper seeks to address some of these knowledge gaps using the case of the
Torrance Barrens Dark Sky Preserve, the world’s first permanent dark sky area (DSA),
located in Muskoka, Ontario, Canada.
1.1. Dark sky areas (DSAs)
DSAs offer an interesting framework for reducing light pollution centered on the recreational, aesthetic, and tourism benefits associated with preserving a vibrant night sky.
In the late 1990s, NGOs such as the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) and,
within Canada, the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC), began designating
places based on various standards of light pollution abatement and night sky visibility
(Barentine 2016). Following Meier (2015), we refer to these designated places as ‘dark
sky areas’ in order to encompass all the various titles (e.g. preserves, reserves, parks,
communities, etc.) used by the RASC and IDA. DSAs are currently “a phenomenon of
western, industrialized countries,” and often overlap with previously established protected
areas (PAs) (Meier 2015, 179). However, a population center may also be a DSA if it
meets certain criteria for light pollution regulation and education (Aubrecht et al. 2010).
DSAs have been established predominantly in rural communities with economies
that depend on tourism (Rodrigues, Rodrigues, and Peroff 2014). Stargazing and
astronomy can attract tourists to rural communities, making a vibrant night sky a
potential economic asset to certain policy actors (Page and Connell 2006; Aubrecht
et al. 2010; Collison and Poe 2013; Rodrigues, Rodrigues, and Peroff 2014; Barentine
2016). Internationally, DSAs constitute one of the most widely used frameworks for
reducing light pollution, with the number of DSA designations increasing rapidly as
the movement has expanded from North America to Europe, and from remote PAs to
communities that are in close proximity to population centers (Meier 2015; Rodrigues,
Rodrigues, and Peroff 2014). Despite the increase in designations, DSAs are still a
relatively recent policy development, with most DSAs designated after 2010 (Dick and
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2629
Welch 2012). The effectiveness of the DSA model for achieving light pollution reductions—as well as different light management strategies within the DSA framework—is
still largely open for debate, especially when DSAs neighbor larger population centers
(Aubrecht et al. 2010; Meier 2015; Rodrigues, Rodrigues, and Peroff 2014).
In what follows, we assess the utility of the DSA model using the Torrance
Barrens Dark Sky Preserve as our case study. Drawing on primary data collected
through key informant interviews and survey research methods, we document and
explore the social dynamics that led to the establishment of the DSA; identify some of
the key successes, challenges, and points of controversy associated with the DSA; and
assess local community attitudes towards regulating light pollution. We then discuss
the implications of our findings for environmental planners and managers interested in
utilizing the DSA framework to regulate light pollution in other settings.
2. Methods
Our research followed an exploratory case-study design, considered most suitable
when “the available literature and existing knowledge base is poor” (Yin 1998). Given
the lack of empirical research on DSAs, an exploratory case study approach allowed
relevant, sometimes unexpected, topics to be uncovered in the data, generating findings
that can serve as starting points for future research (Yin 1998). We used a combination
of qualitative and qualitative methods, both to triangulate our data and to ensure we
encompassed the broad range of topics relevant to the Muskoka case (Jick 1979).
2.1. Study area
The study sites for this project were the Town of Gravenhurst and the Muskoka Lakes
Township, the two municipalities that share the Torrance Barrens (see Figure 1). The
Torrance Barrens Dark Sky Preserve is a 19 square km area of Crown (public) land,
accessible by car from Southwood Road. Both Muskoka Lakes and Gravenhurst fall
within the District Municipality of Muskoka, along with Bracebridge, Georgian Bay,
Huntsville, and Lake of Bays. This general area of southern Ontario, Canada, is commonly referred to simply as ‘Muskoka’. Muskoka is well known for its natural features, making it a popular destination for outdoor recreation, especially for people
living in Toronto, located 200 km to the south. Muskoka can be classified as a naturebased, rural tourism area, with tourism comprising the largest portion of the community’s economy (Gallant 2017; Meier 2015). Muskoka is considered ‘cottage country’
because 58% of the population are seasonal residents. Consequently, Muskoka has a
heterogenous population composed of ‘locals’, who work and reside in the area yearround, and ‘cottagers’, who own second homes in the area (Gallant 2017). Muskoka
Lakes’ year-round population is approximately 6,500, while Gravenhurst’s is approximately 12,300; both of which increase substantially during the summer due to the
arrival of cottagers (Statistics Canada 2016).
2.2. Qualitative methods
2.2.1. Document review
A preliminary document review was conducted to piece together a basic history of the
Torrance Barrens case and determine who some of the key actors were. We also used
2630
Figure 1.
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
Map of the Torrance Barrens (source: Royal Astronomical Society of Canada).
documents during and after interviews to further guide our analysis and investigate
important issues raised by informants. Wherever possible, documents were used to verify information provided by key informants in order to maximize reliability (Rubin
and Rubin 1995, 225–227). Documents reviewed included municipal by-laws, government reports, letters, and popular media news articles.
2.2.2. Key informant interviews
In addition to the document review, we attempted to interview at least one of each of
Meier (2015)’s archetypical dark sky actors.1 Stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984)
guided our interview research, based on a recognition that the interests and views of
relevant actors play a major role in determining environmental policy and outcomes
(Bixler et al. 2015; Sterling et al. 2017). We employed a purposive sampling strategy
that involved identifying potential key informants with a connection to the Torrance
Barrens and Muskoka lighting policy frameworks. Once identified, we contacted these
potential informants by email or phone, explained the research and its purposes, and
inquired if they would be willing to participate. Five semi-structured interviews were
subsequently conducted in 2018 (See Table 1). We transcribed informants’ responses
verbatim on a laptop during each interview to enable qualitative content analysis. All
field research protocols were reviewed and approved by the McGill University
Research Ethics Board (REB File #: 45-0618) prior to data collection.
Following Rubin and Rubin (1995), we triangulated the historical accounts provided by key informants by contrasting them with those of the other respondents, as
well as with historical/legal documents in order to ensure data reliability. We coded
our data using the content analysis method (Gubrium et al. 2012, 197) focusing on the
manifest content of the interviews. Statements were coded according to whether they
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2631
Table 1. Key informant interviews.
Interview #
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
Description
Gravenhurst politician
Local resident who lives near the DSA
Gravenhurst legislator
Local business owner
Dark sky activist and conservationist
Date (2018)
June 27
July 12
August 2
October 19
November 12
signified a perceived success, challenge, or point of controversy in light management
around the Torrance Barrens DSA. Interpretations of successes, challenges, and points
of controversy were then scrutinized by comparing conclusions drawn independently
by the coauthors, providing a certain degree of intercoder reliability (Kurasaki 2000).
2.3. Quantitative data collection
Survey research was used to assess the attitudes of local residents towards light pollution regulation and the DSA. The survey was available to be completed online or in
paper form between June and November 2018. The sampling was non-probabilistic;
with the majority of participants recruited opportunistically at community events and
local gatherings. The online survey was also advertised in local businesses and at the
Muskoka Lakes Chamber of Commerce. Following the work of Lyytim€aki and Rinne
(2013), the survey did not aim to represent the Muskoka community as a whole, but
rather explored the views of residents who were interested and/or concerned about the
Torrance Barrens DSA and light pollution in their community
The questionnaire began with some demographic questions following a multiplechoice format. Later, it asked participants to select their top three (or fewer) choices
from two series of potential ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ of regulating artificial light, which
were identified from the literature. The bulk of the survey used Likert-type scales,
comprising a five-point ordinal scale with ‘neutral’ and ‘no answer’ options
(Croasmun and Ostrom 2011). We chose a close-ended format to more easily quantify
and compare responses to broader attitudinal questions about light pollution in the area
(Visser et al. 2013).
2.4. Limitations
Both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this research have methodological limitations which should be explicitly noted. Time and financial limitations meant that
many voices in Muskoka were not represented in this study. We selected interview
informants who, based on preliminary readings, we believed could best speak to the
broader policy goals and objectives of the major stakeholder groups. However, the
views of one individual cannot fairly represent the views of an entire stakeholder
group. Rathbun (2008) notes that interviewees may frame their accounts to serve personal interests, sometimes at the expense of objectivity. We attempted to mitigate this
by triangulating non-perceptual interview information with other informants’ accounts
and information from documents (Rubin and Rubin 1995, 225–227). However, this
2632
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
inherent limitation of our interview research likely affects the historical accounts of
the Muskoka and the Torrance Barrens DSA. We also need to acknowledge that I5 is
related to one of the authors, representing an implicit source of potential research bias.
This key informant was a central actor in the establishment of the DSA and an essential source of information for the case study. The potential for bias was managed explicitly between the coauthors with the informant remaining at ‘arm’s length’ throughout
the research process so as to not unduly influence conclusions (Rathbun 2008).
3. Results
3.1. Establishing a DSA in Muskoka
Long before the Torrance Barrens was designated as a DSA, local residents used the
area for hunting, trapping, gathering, snowmobiling, nature-viewing, stargazing, and
general outdoor recreation (I2). However, as the Muskoka area became more popular,
a life-long cottager (I5) became convinced that the area needed to be formally protected. His advocacy garnered the support of the District Municipality of Muskoka, the
Town[ship] governments of Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes, a YMCA summer camp,
snowmobiling clubs, naturalist organizations, trail committees, hunting/angling federation, tourism companies, a cottagers’ association, and a host of other local groups
(MNR 2006, 1.0). In June 1997, this stakeholder alliance successfully lobbied the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), a provincial government agency, to
establish the Barrens as a Conservation Reserve on the grounds that its “strategic location and special features and species make [the Torrance Barrens] significant within
the natural [ … ] system” (MNR 2006, 2.2). As is typical for Canadian Conservation
Reserves, the MNR heavily restricted resource extraction and forbade the sale of land
within the Barrens, thus protecting it from development (MNR 2006, Appendix 2).
The Torrance Barrens possesses large expanses of exposed bedrock, devoid of trees
and other obstructions, which provide unique 360-degree panoramic views of the dark
sky (I5). After the area was made into a Conservation Reserve, more visitors began to
appreciate the Barrens’ dark sky, augmenting its reputation of having astronomical
value (I2). Two years after its establishment as a Conservation Reserve, two local individuals, including I5, pushed for the Reserve’s astronomical value to be formally recognized and protected.
We got the MNR to designate it as a dark sky reserve. It was just advocacy. We did
write a report, we had meetings. But I have to tell you that the MNR people were
supportive. It became the world’s first permanently designated dark sky reserve. It was
the first dark sky reserve in Canada. The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
immediately jumped on it. It was on the front page of the Globe and Mail [newspaper].
There were articles all over the place. It paved the way for other dark sky reserves
across Canada (I5).
Key stakeholders that supported creating the world’s first DSA were the MNR, the
Muskoka Heritage Foundation, and the Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes councils
(local government) (MNR 2006, 3.2.1). In 1999, the MNR issued an official
‘Statement of Conservation Interest’, which directed management of the Reserve. This
Statement (updated in 2006) formalized the Barrens’ dark sky recognition, providing it
with the unprecedented title ‘Dark Sky Reserve’ (I5; MNR 2006, 3.2.1). The Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC) was involved during the process,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2633
concurrently designating it Canada’s first ‘Dark Sky Preserve’. The RASC’s website
indicates that this designation preceded twenty-one subsequent Dark Sky Preserve designations by the RASC across Canada, including ten National Parks and five
Provincial Parks. The Torrance Barrens DSA is now a famous location for astronomy,
drawing stargazers to Muskoka from across Canada and around the world (I5).
Any light within the Torrance Barrens is regulated by the Ontario Provincial
Government through the MNR’s Statement of Conservation Interest. However, the
MNR does not have authority outside the Torrance Barrens’ borders; their Statement
of Conservation Interest (2006) reads:
MNR would support any municipal decision in the future to adopt guidelines or a bylaw for the design and placement of outside lighting to prevent light pollution within an
appropriate range of the conservation reserve (MNR, 3.2.1, 2006).
This implied that the onus of regulating light fell solely on the surrounding municipalities. Following the MNR’s recommendation, the Town of Gravenhurst initially
incorporated night sky protection into their Site Plan Agreement, requiring that lighting
be ‘sensitive’ to the night sky given the town’s proximity to the Torrance Barrens (I5).
In 2005, a $170 million development project called the ‘Muskoka Wharf’ took
place on the shores of Lake Muskoka in Gravenhurst. This tourist destination included
parks, playgrounds, museums, restaurants, and parking lots. Conscious that the Wharf
could cause significant light pollution if not carefully designed, Gravenhurst assembled
a committee to select dark sky friendly lighting, which included dark sky activists and
a lighting specialist (I5). Widely considered a success, those concerned about the night
sky hoped the lighting at the Muskoka Wharf would set a positive precedent for future
lighting in the town (I5).
However, shortly after the Muskoka Wharf, a second major construction project
called the RioCan Development was proposed, which today includes department stores
and other corporate entities. I5 expressed his disappointment in how the lighting for
this project was regulated.
We all trusted [ … ] the Town of Gravenhurst. The Site Plan Agreement acknowledged
the proximity to the Torrance Barrens [ … ] This all sounded and looked sufficient.
However, it wasn’t. The lighting at what is now the RioCan site was atrocious. While
the lighting did aim downwards, it was so bright, and so numerous, and so over-lit that
the reflected light spoiled the dark sky [ … ] Apparently the Site Plan Agreement was
not enforced. (I5, 2017, letter to Gravenhurst politician)
I5 states that he did not get involved in helping select RioCan’s lighting because
he was assured by a Town Planner that it would be dark sky friendly. A few years
later, he successfully convinced a RioCan executive to turn off half of their installed
outdoor lighting. He remained concerned that this ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ had no
legal standing (I5).
The Muskoka Ratepayers Association, an “oversight and advocacy group that represents the member taxpayer’s interest in local government” led the campaign for
stronger lighting regulations following the RioCan Development.
The Muskoka Ratepayers Association realized that site-plan agreements were not
sufficient to preserve the night sky. Normal citizens have no recourse to object or
2634
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
enforce a site plan agreement that has not been carried out because they are not privy to
the agreement. The town could and did choose not to enforce them. The Ratepayers
Association, after doing some research, went to the councilors and mayors of Muskoka
Lakes and Gravenhurst advocating for town by-laws to limit light pollution (I5).
Receptive to this advocacy, the Town of Gravenhurst formed a municipal lighting
by-law in 2012, which was followed two years later by the Muskoka Lakes Township
(I3). In both municipalities, this regulatory mechanism is known as the ‘Dark Sky Bylaw’ (DSBL). There is currently (2019) no overarching District Municipality of
Muskoka DSBL, even though many of the municipalities now possess one
(Doyle 2018).
The formation of Gravenhurst’s DSBL was preceded by consultation in the form
of public meetings, which reportedly had low attendance, as well as consultation with
Gravenhurst’s Environmental Committee, which included some dark sky activists (I3;
I5). A Gravenhurst legislator spoke about its creation.
The DSBL was controversial: half thought it was over-regulation and half that it didn’t
go far enough. It had low public interest initially. It was driven by a small but
passionate group of activists (I3).
Both the Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes DSBL state that any person installing
outdoor lighting within the town[ship] ‘shall not cause light pollution’ (Gravenhurst
DSBL 2012, Section 2.1; Muskoka Lakes DSBL 2014, Section 2.1). Both DSBLs
main regulatory tenet is that outdoor lighting must have full-cut-off fixtures
(Gravenhurst DSBL 2012, Section 1; Muskoka Lakes DSBL 2014, Section 1).
Additionally, street lighting must not exceed standards established by the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America and the IDA and must be the minimum
required for safety. Various exemptions are granted, such as for temporary events and
Christmas ornamentation. New developments must be inspected to ensure that lighting
is compliant with the by-law. Residential violations of the DSBL were intended to be
complaint-based (I1; I3; I5).
Muskoka Lakes and Gravenhurst’s DSBLs differ in two main aspects. First,
although both DSBLs possess a ‘grandfather clause’, Muskoka Lakes requires that “All
non-conforming luminaires [ … ] be made compliant to the regulations of this bylaw by
January 1, 2024” (Muskoka Lakes DSBL 2014, Section 2.13). Second, Muskoka Lakes’
description of ‘light pollution’ is broader than Gravenhurst’s. Gravenhurst defines it as
“The shining of light upwards into the sky above the horizontal plane of the light
fixture” (Gravenhurst DSBL 2012, Section 1). Muskoka Lakes begins with this statement but adds: “Or lighting that interferes with the ability to see the night sky caused
by any of: light trespass; excess of glare; excess of direct light; excess of reflected light;
light from fixtures that are not ‘full cut-off’” (Muskoka Lakes DSBL 2014, Section 1).
This addition significantly expands what can be deemed non-compliant by Muskoka
Lakes’ DSBL under the mandate to ‘not cause light pollution’ (I5).
3.2. Controversies surrounding lighting regulations
Dark sky activists were concerned that Gravenhurst’s DSBL did not include a retroactive enforcement clause nor regulate the brightness of reflected light (I5).
Gravenhurst politicians spoke to why these features were not feasible in their town
(I1; I3).
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2635
Many councilors already believed the Dark Sky By-law was overregulation [ … ]
echoing sentiments that they were hearing from the public, who believed there were too
many by-laws in general. There was a big debate around retroactive enforcement.
Activists wanted to make the By-law enforceable within two years. But the council
responded that this was questionably legal, hard to enforce, and many members of the
community would maybe not like it (I3).
As for regulating reflected light:
We don’t have the regulatory teeth or to go after brightness, we don’t have the
resources (I3).
A Gravenhurst politician (I1) offered a similar perspective, asserting that limited
time, personnel, and budgets were key factors preventing the DSBL from being
strengthened.
The biggest challenge is what’s in place already—there is a cost of replacing existing
lights. Muskoka is a wealthy community, but there is also poverty. To those people the
dark sky may not be as important. [ … ] Enforcing by-laws is time and staff consuming,
and there are many other important issues that by-laws deal with, such as people not
taking care of their property, cutting down trees, and making fires. The dark sky is an
important issue, but it is not as big of a concern as water, which people use to kayak,
swim, and drink (I1).
I5 was also concerned that the Town of Gravenhurst was not enforcing the existing
tenets of their DSBL, asserting that the town had granted unwarranted exemption to
various corporate entities, as well as the town’s own sign on Highway 11 (I5). A
Gravenhurst politician pointed out it may not have been possible for some corporations
to turn off their sign due to franchise standards (I1). He asserted that, if a new corporate entity came to Gravenhurst, there would be negotiations attempted in order to get
them to make their lighting as dark sky friendly as possible. However, Gravenhurst
politicians acknowledged that the town tries to strike a balance between dark sky preservation and economic development (I1; I3).
There was also controversy over whether illuminated signs were regulated under
Gravenhurst’s Sign Bylaw or DSBL (I3).
Gravenhurst’s Sign bylaw echoes the District’s; dark sky considerations are part of it,
but the bylaw is not very restrictive. The developers of the Sign Bylaw wanted it to be
stronger, but the council opposed this because they were hearing from the public that
there was already too much regulation. The council just wanted to follow district
standards; they weren’t interested in adding extra regulations. Businesses also pushed
for less regulation in the sign bylaw in the public consultation meeting (I3).
I3 personally believed that the sign bylaw needed to be improved in order to protect the night sky but also opined that it was important to be consistent with the
District’s standards (I3).
The regional manager of a local restaurant located near the Torrance Barrens (I4)
spoke about his experience dealing with Muskoka’s lighting regulations.
Our [illuminated] sign out front had to be turned off [because of the DSBL]. Yeah, it
was an annoyance. Being in business late at night, if we have that big sign on, people
2636
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
know I’m open and won’t drive by. But it’s an annoyance I agree with. Our restaurant
doesn’t attract anyone here. The natural attractions are what brings folks to Muskoka
from Barrie and Toronto. We just happen to get their business. Maybe we can get the
sign going with the cut-off fixtures (I4).
In 2017, dark sky activist I5 confronted the Gravenhurst council and urged the
town to take a stronger stance on dark sky preservation, bringing the support of
numerous stakeholders including the Muskoka Heritage Association, the Muskoka
Ratepayers Association, the mayor of the Muskoka Lakes Township, a YMCA summer
camp, and a letter of support from the MNR. With emotions running high, the meeting
quickly fell into disarray (I5). The dark sky activists were dismissed, and the impassioned meeting commenced with no progress made (I3; I5).
The Gravenhurst Banner (September 5, 2017) later published an article with comments from Gravenhurst’s deputy mayor, who claimed the dark sky activists were
‘destructive and demeaning’ to the Town of Gravenhurst. Later, an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star (June 9, 2018) criticized Gravenhurst, including comments
from a spectator who asserted that the activists were treated ‘abominably’ by the
Gravenhurst council. These popular news article pieces drew significant attention to
the issue of regulating light pollution in Muskoka.
Despite controversies surrounding Gravenhurst’s DSBL, there are several areas
which stakeholders agreed were important future goals for the Torrance Barrens. One
such topic was dark sky education. Gravenhurst politicians believed that education was
the area in which the DSBL could be most significantly improved upon. They also
pointed out that the town was currently in the process of replacing over 700 of their
streetlights with LED bulbs, a major success from an energy conservation standpoint (I3).
At the suggestion of the Muskoka Lakes council, I5 organized the creation of a
group that is now called the Guardians of the Dark Sky, which includes town[ship]
council members, dark sky activists, environmentalists, scientists, astronomers, cottagers, locals, businesspeople, and lighting specialists. The mission of the group is to
serve as a unified body to advocate for dark sky preservation, promote light pollution
education, and to collaborate with Muskoka Lakes and Gravenhurst councils on taking
care of the DSA site (I5). In 2018, this group hosted an educational event which capitalized on thousands of visitors who had gone to the Barrens to view a meteor shower.
The Guardians Group has had dialogue with Gravenhurst politicians, and it appears
possible that the DSBL will be strengthened sometime in the near future (I5).
3.3. Attitudes of local community members towards light regulation
Survey respondents (n ¼ 129) had all spent time in Muskoka on at least an annual
basis, but only 65% reported owning a property there. 46% of respondents considered
themselves ‘cottagers’, while 33% identified as ‘locals’. A significant proportion
(21%) did not believe the cottager-local binary applied to their residence situation.
Participants were primarily from the Town of Gravenhurst (n ¼ 51) and the Muskoka
Lakes Township (n ¼ 57), the two municipalities which share the Torrance Barrens.
Survey responses indicate that the Torrance Barrens is well known in the community, with most participants (72%) having heard of the Barrens, over half (52%) having
visited it, and a third (33%) having stargazed there. Among respondents who had
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Figure 2.
2637
Local community attitudes towards light regulation (n ¼ 129).
visited the Torrance Barrens, hiking was the most popular reported use (88%), followed by stargazing (64%). Every respondent who had heard of the Torrance Barrens
agreed that it was an important part of the Muskoka community.
Figure 2 illustrates that our sample of community members were highly supportive
of reducing light pollution, with 88% of participants agreeing that Muskoka should
regulate artificial light. Various strategies for going about this were also well supported. Most participants agreed with regulating commercial lighting (89%), and to a
lesser extent street lighting (84%) and residential lighting (79%). Over 80% of our survey respondents disagreed with permitting lighting exemptions to corporate entities
that bring economic development to Muskoka. Virtually all participants agreed that
light pollution degraded the night sky, while progressively fewer agreed that it wasted
energy (91%), harmed nature (85%), and harmed human health (74%).
Regarding the perceived significance of various costs and benefits associated with
mitigating light pollution, the benefits of regulating artificial light—including ‘a
vibrant night sky’ (n ¼ 104), ‘benefits for nocturnal wildlife’ (n ¼ 87), and ‘preventing
energy waste’ (n ¼ 79)—received far more responses than the costs, for which ‘the
financial cost of complying with regulations’ (n ¼ 57) was the most frequently cited
negative effect (Figure 3). Notably, ‘discouraging economic development’ (n ¼ 25) and
‘tourism’ (n ¼ 23) were selected as important effects of lighting regulation by relatively few respondents.
4. Discussion
Our analysis identified five overarching management steps taken in response to light
pollution in Muskoka. In each of these steps, the DSA served both as an underlying
2638
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
Figure 3. Perceived costs and benefits of regulating artificial lighting (responses > 20%
or sample).
policy mechanism and justification for light pollution abatement. We summarize this
information in Table 2, with a corresponding generalized managerial path intended to
help guide planners and managers interested in reducing light pollution through the
use of a DSA. It should be noted that, in Muskoka, strong local activism played a key
role throughout the reported process to push for each of the key management steps to
be taken.
Doyle and McEachern (2004) speak to the ‘transnational’ role that larger NGOs
can play in advocating for environmental protection. The RASC’s ‘Dark Sky Preserve’
designation offered the Torrance Barrens global recognition for its pristine dark sky.
Along with the MNR’s ‘Dark Sky Reserve’ designation, such official titles provided
the Torrance Barrens a sense of credibility which helped justify the pursuit of lighting
regulations in neighboring municipalities. However, the front-line advocacy for light
pollution abatement was driven by local, Muskoka-based activists, including cottagers,
local residents, local summer camps, and a Ratepayers Association. These groups
ranged from passive support to active advocacy throughout the various management
actions taken.
Under Meier’s (2019) framework for analyzing lighting conflicts, Muskoka’s local
activists were clearly the ‘complainant’, or actor who “take(s) issue with the lighting
situation … and demands change.” They appeared to subscribe more to an
‘environmentalist’ than a ‘technicist’ argument against light pollution, given that their
main concern was outdoor lighting’s impact on the nocturnal environment (Challeat,
Lapostolle, and Pomeon 2014). We termed Muskoka’s activists ‘dark sky activists’
because it was clear that night sky preservation was their primary goal. Rogers and
Sovic (2001) pertinently comment: “Even when there is a dedicated bureaucracy, the
continued existence of a cadre of vigilant citizen advocates is vital to invigorate the
bureaucracy, to help it, and to keep the public policy agenda from stagnating.” This
dynamic was a significant factor in the success of the Muskoka case. Similar to
Rogers and Sovic, our results show that strong local activism is needed to advocate for
the designation of the DSA and, subsequently, to hold politicians accountable for
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2639
Table 2. Dark sky area (DSA) management steps.
Timeline
1997
General managerial action
Action in Muskoka
1. Piece of land set aside for protection
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) designates Torrance Barrens
as a Conservation Reserve
1999
2. Dark sky deemed as valuable for the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
community and DSA designation
designates Torrance Barrens as Dark
sought out
Sky Preserve Ontario MNR designates
Torrance Barrens as a Dark
Sky Reserve
1999
3. Initial lighting regulations created
Gravenhurst Council incorporates dark
sky protection into SitePlan Agreement
2012, 2014 4. Lighting regulations improved
Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes
as needed
Town[ship] Councils create DSBL
2018
5. Community group formed to facilitate Guardians of the Dark Sky
communication between DSA
group formed
stakeholders and promote light
pollution education
regulation of light and sustaining the DSA. Interestingly, formal organization of
Muskoka’s dark sky activists in the Guardians of the Dark Sky group did not occur
until 2018, relatively late in the overall timeline of Muskoka’s DSA activities (Table
2). Given the significant role that local engagement has historically played in
Muskoka, it will be interesting to see whether this unified activist group will be able
to achieve tangible improvements in light pollution policy and management and
expanded dark sky educational efforts going forward.
Muskoka politicians generally respected the overarching goals of the dark sky activists and agreed with much of what they suggested in terms of regulation; however,
Gravenhurst politicians opposed both retroactively regulating light (i.e. removing or
expiring the DSBL’s Grandfather clause) as well as controlling the brightness of outdoor light. Disagreements between dark sky activists and local politicians regarding
these policies constituted the main controversy of the Muskoka DSA case. Politicians
stated that they opposed the aforementioned policy proposals because they perceived
them as unenforceable and believed they would hinder economic development and
thus be opposed by certain residents. These politicians were adamant that they desired
to strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection.
While I4, a local restaurant owner, was generally in favor of the DSBL, he conceded that having to turn off his restaurant’s illuminated outdoor signs hindered his
business operations. I4’s experience exemplifies a legitimate economic drawback of
strong, binding regulations on outdoor lighting. Bertin (2016) explains that illuminated
advertisements have deep cultural roots in capitalist society, with lit logos embodying
economic prosperity. I4 believed, however, that the tourism benefits of preserving
Muskoka’s night sky outweighed the costs that lighting regulations imposed on his
business. Pottharst and Wukovitsch (2015) advise against attempting to economically
value artificial lighting due to the complexity and interrelatedness of its financial costs
and benefits. Yet, with respect to justifying regulations to local authorities, it seems
that the DSA model could benefit from an empirically-grounded articulation of I4’s
2640
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
assumption—that light pollution regulation is economically advantageous for some
communities, both directly through night sky tourism and indirectly through the preservation and promotion of an area’s natural character. Though contingent valuation is
notoriously limited (Hanemann 1994), such approaches might be best equipped to
assess how the holistic value of a vibrant night sky compares to the economic value
provided by illuminated outdoor advertising.
In the case of Gravenhurst’s Sign By-law, politicians were hesitant to introduce
regulations that deviated from existing legislation at the district level. As there is currently no district-level consideration for dark sky protection, regional interests in effect
superseded local goals for environmental protection in Muskoka. Dark sky activists
were concerned that significant regulatory undertakings by the Muskoka Lakes
Township could be negated by weak regulatory enforcement in Gravenhurst, or by
light pollution stemming from regional population centers such as Barrie, Ontario. It is
clear that regional coordination is desirable for DSA management, given that the night
sky is a non-excludable good that can be impacted from beyond the local regulatory
sphere actively engaged in DSA management (Fortin and Gagnon 1999; Challeat,
Lapostolle, and Pomeon 2014). Yet in many places, such multi-level governance would
entail extending light pollution controls to places seeing few if any direct economic
benefits from the DSA. This dynamic suggests that DSAs are likely to be most successful either in rural areas where local ordinances are sufficient to protect the night
sky, or in places where night-sky tourism is substantial enough to justify translocal
regulations. Nevertheless, in the absence of regional engagement in light regulation,
local authorities need to be able to implement necessary regulations for sound
DSA management.
Notably, both dark sky activists and politicians agreed that Muskoka should invest
more in non-binding approaches such as dark sky educational tools. Controversies in
Muskoka suggest that voluntary tools are more amenable to diverse stakeholder groups
and thus easier to employ in DSA communities. Educational tools and planning-based
approaches such as ‘lighting master plans’ are essential elements for successfully
reducing light pollution (K€ohler 2015). However, the extent to which such voluntary
governance approaches can, by themselves, enable DSA activities remains a key question. The IDA currently designates communities that reduce light pollution solely
through non-binding approaches as ‘Dark Sky Friendly Developments of Distinction’.
Future case studies should gauge whether these communities have been able to attain
significant reductions in light pollution and realize tangible economic benefits from
night sky recreation and tourism. It would greatly enhance the versatility of the DSA
model if such approaches were shown to be worthwhile for communities, even if they
might not enable certain more serious astronomical activities.
Regarding broader community attitudes, the survey results illustrate that a subset of
the Muskoka population is concerned about light pollution and broadly supportive of
regulating light. Surveyed members of the community were somewhat concerned that
lighting regulations might cost them financially, and to a lesser extent that less nighttime light might imply reduced nighttime safety. These considerations, however,
appear to be outweighed by the perceived benefits of regulating light pollution. In line
with existing surveys (Lyytim€aki and Rinne 2013; Schulte-R€omer et al. 2019), our
results suggest a high degree of public support for light pollution reduction. Edensor
(2017) sees dark sky activists as pioneers in a small, but growing movement to reembrace nighttime darkness (218). While many studies have noted that local authorities
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2641
have been unduly hesitant to regulate light pollution (e.g. H€olker et al. 2010;
Lyytim€aki and Rinne 2013; Gallaway 2010; Krause 2015, 125; Shaw 2014), in certain
places there may be an increasing public appetite for nighttime darkness. This challenges the assumption held by many local authorities that regulating light is a controversial undertaking for the general public.
Lyytim€aki and Rinne (2013) propose that public audiences are often poorly
informed about the ecological and human health effects of light pollution, believing
that such topics have not yet truly escaped discipline-constrained academic circles. In
our study, Muskoka survey participants cited dark sky preservation as the most important benefit of regulating light. They viewed ecological concerns and energy conservation ahead of human health impacts in terms of their degree of recognition and
concern. This finding supports previous survey research conducted by Lyytim€aki and
Rinne (2013) and Schulte-R€omer et al. (2019). Given that it is empirically well-supported that artificial light at night negatively affects human health (see Chepesiuk
[2009] for an in-depth discussion of this), these results suggest that academic information concerning the health implications of light pollution may need to be more effectively conveyed to public audiences.
Our survey results support the notion that DSAs promote a better recognition of
light pollution’s impacts on the dark sky and natural ecosystems. On the one hand, the
creation of DSAs tends to generate excitement and media attention towards the issue
of light pollution (Meier 2015). In addition, a DSA designation may move people to
appreciate the aesthetic and environmental benefits of a lack of light pollution. The
majority of our surveyed Muskoka residents had previously used the Torrance Barrens
for stargazing and other forms of outdoor recreation, likely promoting their appreciation of darkness’ benefits for night sky viewing and natural ecosystems.
Interestingly, we did not find significant variation in residents’ degree of support
for regulating different types of light (e.g. commercial, residential, street lighting) nor
for various abatement strategies. With the exception of ‘raising the price of electricity’,
Lyytim€aki and Rinne (2013), as well as Schulte-R€omer et al. (2019), also found only
minor variations in participants’ degree of acceptance for different approaches to
reducing light pollution. These three survey studies all suggest that, from the perspective of the general public, the end goal is perhaps more important than the means
through which it is achieved with respect to regulating light pollution.
Regarding future research, it would be very useful to conduct more surveys with
sample populations that are statistically representative of an entire community. Like
Lyytim€aki and Rinne (2013), we recruited participants opportunistically, implying that
our results were likely biased towards Muskoka residents who were interested in the
DSA and light pollution. Going forward, more probabilistic sampling strategies will
help to test and potentially substantiate the trends observed in explorative studies on
public perceptions of light pollution and light regulation.
5. Conclusion
This study highlights how, over two decades, the existence of a DSA both promoted
and facilitated light pollution reductions in Muskoka, Ontario. Our results provide useful insights for policy, planning and management and raise important topics for future
research. The exploratory case study illustrates the nuances of regulating light in a
DSA context, showing how various socio-political barriers to light pollution abatement
2642
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
were (or were not) overcome through sustained ‘dark sky activism’. Muskoka politicians cited several concerns regarding light regulation, including the impact of binding
regulations on economic development, the implications of deviating from translocal
ordinances, and a belief that certain residents might perceive the DSBL as overregulation. Overall, however, the DSA regulatory model proved successful for reducing light
pollution in Muskoka. While dark sky activists and the general public were motivated
primarily by environmental and aesthetic concerns, even the interviewed politicians
and businesspeople did not argue with the tourism potential of a pristine night for the
Muskoka area. Like many ecotourism scenarios, the joint environmental and economic
appeals of DSAs seem to underlie the model’s effectiveness.
DSAs appear likely to be most successful in rural communities with tourism-based
economies, especially if there exists a generally supportive public and a cohort of
activist residents who are willing keep the issue of light pollution on the planning
agenda. In other areas, the vision of reducing light pollution so as to revive a vibrant
night sky and promote dark sky tourism may seem too daunting a task with too few
tangible benefits for environmental planners, policymakers, and managers to take seriously. It is clear that compelling and salient justifications will need to be found for
reducing light pollution in places where night sky tourism is unviable. Along with
existing literature, our survey results suggest that the general public may be more
amenable to lighting regulations than is often supposed by regulatory bodies. In addition, better communication of the potential human health impacts associated with
excessive light pollution may offer some momentum for future policy change.
Note
1.
Meier (2015) defines key DSA stakeholders as 1) Politicians: “actors who are elected
decision makers,” 2) Businesspeople: “corporate actors and their interest organizations,” 3)
Astronomers, Environmentalists, and Heritage Preservationists: the groups who advocate for
night sky preservation (184). Meier (2019) focused on lighting conflicts, arguing that every
case has “complainants” and “defendants” of a given lighting system.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to our research participants for donating their valuable time and energy to our
study. The support of the William Dawson Scholar Award, McGill University (G.M. Hickey), is
gratefully acknowledged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Aubrecht, C., M. Stojan-Dolar, A. De Sherbinin, M. Jaiteh, T. Longcore, and C. Elvidge. 2010.
“Lighting Governance for Protected Areas and Beyond: Identifying the Urgent Need for
Sustainable Management of Artificial Light at Night.” Oceanic Engineering Society 3.
https://earthzine.org/lighting-governance-for-protected-areas-and-beyond-identifying-theurgent-need-for-sustainable-management-of-artificial-light-at-night/
Barentine, J. 2016. “Going for the Gold: Quantifying and Ranking Visual Night Sky Quality in
International Dark Sky Places.” International Journal of Sustainable Lighting 18: 9–15.
Bertin, S. 2016. “A Reflection on Light as a Medium: Surveillance, the Sublime, and Poetics in
Montreal’s Nocturnal Landscape.” Intermedialites (26). doi:10.7202/1037314ar.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2643
Bixler, R. Patrick, Jampel Dell'Angelo, Orleans Mfune, and Hassan Roba. 2015. “The Political
Ecology of Participatory Conservation: Institutions and Discourse.” Journal of Political
Ecology 22 (1): 164–182. doi:10.2458/v22i1.21083.
Challeat, S., D. Lapostolle, and T. Pomeon. 2014. “Blaming the Light, Claiming the Night.
Actors, Issues and Effects of Lighting Conflicts in France since the 1980’s.” Paper presented
at the Royal Geographic Society Annual International Conference, London, August 27–29.
Chepesiuk, R. 2009. “Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution.” Environmental
Health Perspectives 117 (1): A20–A27. doi:10.1289/ehp.117-a20.
Cinzano, P., F. Falchi, and C. Elvidge. 2001. “The First World Atlas of the Artificial Night Sky
Brightness.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 328 (3): 689–707. doi:10.
1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04882.x.
Collison, F. M., and K. Poe. 2013. “Astronomical Tourism’: The Astronomy and Dark Sky
Program at Bryce Canyon National Park.” Tourism Management Perspectives 7: 1–15. doi:
10.1016/j.tmp.2013.01.002.
Croasmun, J., and L. Ostrom. 2011. “Using Likert-Type Scales in the Social Sciences.” Journal
of Adult Education 40 (1): 19–22.
Dick, R., and D. Welch. 2012. “Dark-Sky Parks.” In Environmental Impact of Light Pollution
and Its Abatement, edited by RASC, 22–32. Toronto: Special Report of the Journal of The
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.
Doyle, C. 2018. Muskoka Dark Skies Approaches. District Municipality of Muskoka:
Environmental Watershed and Programs.
Doyle, T., and D. McEachern. 2004. Environment and Politics. London: Routledge.
Edensor, T. 2017. “From Light to Dark.” Daylight, Illumination, and Gloom. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Falchi, Fabio, Pierantonio Cinzano, Dan Duriscoe, Christopher C. M. Kyba, Christopher D.
Elvidge, Kimberly Baugh, Boris A. Portnov, Nataliya A. Rybnikova, and Riccardo Furgoni.
2016. “The New World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness.” Science Advances 2 (6):
e1600377. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600377.
Fortin, M., and C. Gagnon. 1999. “An Assessment of Social Impacts of National Parks on
Communities in Quebec, Canada.” Environmental Conservation 26 (3): 200–211. doi:10.
1017/S0376892999000284.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Gallant, A. 2017. “Understanding the Lived Experiences of Local Residents in Muskoka,
Ontario: A Case Study on Cottaging.” Master’s Thesis, University of Waterloo.
Gallaway, T. 2010. “On Light Pollution, Passive Pleasures, and the Instrumental Value of
Beauty.” Journal of Economic Issues 44 (1): 71–88. doi:10.2753/JEI0021-3624440104.
Gravenhurst Dark Sky By-law (Gravenhurst DSBL). 2012. By-law Number 2012-135.
Gubrium, J. F., J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, and K. D. McKinney. 2012. The SAGE
Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
doi:10.4135/9781452218403.
Hanemann, W. M. 1994. “Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation.” Journal of
Economic Perspectives 8 (4): 19–43.
H€olker, Franz, Timothy Moss, Barbara Griefahn, Werner Kloas, Christian C. Voigt, Dietrich
Henckel, Andreas H€anel, et al. 2010. “The Dark Side of Light: A Transdisciplinary
Research Agenda for Light Pollution Policy.” Ecology and Society 15 (4): 13. doi:10.5751/
ES-03685-150413.
J€agerbrand, A. K. 2015. “New Framework of Sustainable Indicators for Outdoor LED (Light
Emitting Diodes) Lighting and SSL (Solid State Lighting).” Sustainability 7 (1): 1028–1063.
doi:10.3390/su7011028.
Jick, T. D. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): 602–611. doi:10.2307/2392366.
K€ohler, D. 2015. “The Lighting Master Plan as an Instrument for Municipalities? A Critical
Assessment of Possibilities and Limitations.” In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution, and
Society, edited by J. Meier, U. Hasen€
ohrl, K. Krause, and M. Pottharst, 141–158. New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Krause, K. 2015. “Regulating Urban Light: Prospects for Institutional Change.” In Urban
Lighting, Light Pollution, and Society, edited by J. Meier, U. Hasen€ohrl, K. Krause, and M.
Pottharst, 125–141. New York: Taylor & Francis.
2644
D. A. Silver and G. M. Hickey
Kurasaki, K. S. 2000. “Intercoder Reliability for Validating Conclusions Drawn from OpenEnded Interview Data.” Field Methods 12 (3): 179–194. doi:10.1177/1525822X0001200301.
Kyba, Christopher C. M., Theres Kuester, Alejandro Sanchez de Miguel, Kimberly Baugh,
Andreas Jechow, Franz H€olker, Jonathan Bennie, Christopher D. Elvidge, Kevin J. Gaston,
and Luis Guanter. 2017. “Artificially Lit Surface of Earth at Night Increasing in Radiance
and Extent.” Science Advances 3 (11): e1701528. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701528.
Lighting Research Center. 2007. What is the Difference Between Full Cutoff and Fully
Shielded. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/ nlpip/
lightinganswers/lightpollution/cutoffShielded.asp.
Lyytim€aki, J., and J. Rinne. 2013. “Voices for the Darkness: Online Survey on Public
Perceptions on Light Pollution as an Environmental Problem.” Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences 10 (2): 127–139. doi:10.1080/1943815X.2013.824487.
Meier, J. 2015. “Designating Dark Sky Areas.” In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution, and Society,
edited by J. Meier, U. Hasen€ohrl, K. Krause, and M. Pottharst, 177–196. New York: Taylor
& Francis.
Meier, J. 2019. “Contentious Light: An Analytical Framework for Lighting Conflicts.”
International Journal of Sustainable Lighting 20 (2): 62–77. doi:10.26607/ijsl.v20i2.89.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2006. Torrance Barrens Conservation Reserve
Management Statement. Parry Sound District: Ministry of Natural Resources.
Morgan-Taylor, M. 2015. “Regulating Light Pollution in Europe: Legal Challenges and Ways
Forward.” In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution, and Society: Muskoka Lakes Dark Sky Bylaw. 2014. By-law Number 2014-029, edited by J. Meier, U. Hasen€ohrl, K. Krause, and M.
Pottharst, 177–196. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Muskoka Lakes Dark Sky By-law. 2014. By-law Number 2014-029.
Navara, K.J., and R.J. Nelson. 2007. “The Dark Side of Light at Night: Physiological,
Epidemiological, and Ecological Consequences.” Journal of Pineal Research 43 (3):
215–224. doi:10.1111/j.1600-079X.2007.00473.x.
Olsen, R. N., T. Gallaway, and D. Mitchell. 2013. “Modelling US Light Pollution.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 57 (9): 883–903. doi:10.1080/096405682013774268.
Page, S., and J. Connell. 2006. Tourism: A Modern Synthesis. London: Thomson Learning.
Pedani, M. 2004. “Light Pollution at the Roque de Los Muchachos Observatory.” New
Astronomy 9 (8): 641–650. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2004.07.001.
Pottharst, M., and F. Wukovitsch. 2015. “The Economics of Night-Time Illumination.” In
Urban Lighting, Light Pollution, and Society, edited by J. Meier, U. Hasen€ohrl, K. Krause,
and M. Pottharst, 203–224. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Rathbun, B. C. 2008. “Interviewing and Qualitative Field Methods: Pragmatism and
Practicalities.” Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0029.
Riegel, K. W. 1973. “Light Pollution: Outdoor Lighting is a Growing Threat to Astronomy.”
Science 179 (4080): 1285–1291. doi:10.1126/science.179.4080.1285.
Rodrigues, A. L., A. Rodrigues, and D. M. Peroff. 2014. “The Sky and Sustainable Tourism
Development: A Case Study of a Dark Sky Reserve Implementation in Alqueva.”
International Journal of Tourism Research 17 (3): 292–302. doi:10.1002/jtr.1987.
Rogers, J., and J. Sovic. 2001. “Let There Be Dark: The National Park Service and the New
Mexico Night Sky Protection Act.” The George Wright Forum 18 (4): 37–45.
Rubin, H. J., and I. S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schulte-R€omer, N., J. Meier, E. Dannemann, and M. S€oding. 2019. “Lighting Professionals
Versus Light Pollution Experts? Investigating Views on an Emerging Environmental
Concern.” Sustainability 11 (6): 1696.
Shaw, R. 2014. “Streetlighting in England and Wales: New Technologies and Uncertainty in the
Assemblage of Streetlighting Infrastructure.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space 46 (9): 2228–2242. doi:10.1068/a130313p.
Statistics Canada. 2016. “2016 Canadian Census.” https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start.
Sterling, Eleanor J., Erin Betley, Amanda Sigouin, Andres Gomez, Anne Toomey, Georgina
Cullman, Cynthia Malone, et al. 2017. “Assessing the Evidence for Stakeholder Engagement
in Biodiversity Conservation.” Biological Conservation 209: 159–171. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.
2017.02.008.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
2645
Stone, T. 2017. “Light Pollution: A Case Study in Framing an Environmental Problem.” Ethics,
Policy and Environment 20 (3): 279–293. doi:10.1080/21550085.2017.1374010.
Visser, P., J. Krosnic, P. Lavrakas, and N. Kim. 2013. “Survey Research.” In The Endurance of
Family Businesses, edited by P. Fernandez Perez and A. Colli, 402–440. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yin, Robert K. 1998. “The Abridged Version of Case Study Research: Design and Method.” In
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, edited by L. Bickman and D. J. Rog,
229–259. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Copyright of Journal of Environmental Planning & Management is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.