Nature’s nocturnal services- Light pollution as a non-recognised challenge for ecosystem services research and management

7/27/2019 Natures nocturnal services- Light pollution as a non-recognised challenge for ecosystem services research and ma

1/5

Natures nocturnal services: Light pollution as a non-recognised challengefor ecosystem services research and management

Jari Lyytimaki n

Finnish Environment Institute, PO Box 140, FIN-00251 Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 3 May 2012

Received in revised form28 November 2012

Accepted 2 December 2012Available online 11 January 2013

Keywords:

Ecosystem disservices

Ecosystem services

Environmental management

Light pollution

Scotoecology

Shifting baselines

a b s t r a c t

Research focusing on ecosystem services has tackled several of the major drivers of environmental

degradation, but it suffers from a blind spot related to light pollution. Light pollution caused by artificial

night-time lighting is a global environmental change affecting terrestrial, coastal and marineecosystems. The long-term effects of the disruption of the natural cycles of light and dark on ecosystem

functioning and ecosystem services are largely unknown. Even though additional research is clearly

needed, identifying, developing and implementing stringent management actions aimed at reducing

inadequately installed, unnecessary or excessive lighting are well justified. This essay argues that

management is hampered, because ecosystem services from nocturnal nature are increasingly under-

appreciated by the public due to shifting baseline syndrome, making most people accustomed to

constantly illuminated and light-polluted night environments. Increased attention from scientists,

managers and the public is needed in order to explicate the best options for preserving the benefits

from natural darkness.

& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: Artificial light as a neglected environmentalstressor

Humanity has succeeded in its enduring endeavour to illumi-

nate the night. Electric light has permeated industrialised socie-

ties since the introduction of the incandescent light bulb in the

late 19th century and especially since the Second World War

(Fouquet and Pearson, 2006). Because of the increase in artificial

light causing sky glow, more than two-thirds of the population of

the United States, about half of the population of the European

Union and one-fifth of the world population has lost the possibility

of seeing the Milky Way from their place of residence (Cinzano

et al., 2001).

Despite the repeated warnings by professional and amateur

astronomers, the trend towards brighter nights is likely to con-tinue. Cheap and energy-effective lighting technologies such as

Light Emitting Diodes (LED) are becoming more widespread and

new energy production methods such as solar-based, small-scale

photovoltaic systems allow the electrification of distant loca-

tions. Safe and reliable illumination undoubtedly increases the

well-being of those currently suffering from the lack of lighting

needed for education, work and social life. However, there are

ecological and health risks related to night-time outdoor lighting

that have often been neglected or underappreciated (Chepesiuk,2009; Falchi et al., 2011; Longcore and Rich, 2004; Lyytimaki

et al., 2012). Furthermore, the loss of night sky persists as a

profound aesthetic issue. We are losing the mesmerising view of

the deep night sky that has fascinated all preceding civilisations.

Seasonal, lunar and circadian photoperiodic cycles have guided

evolution for millions of years. The physical conditions of the

Earth have not allowed the evolution of any species that would

live under constant daylight, but there exists a huge variety of

species that have adapted to a life devoid of sunlight, ranging

from our intestinal microbes to largely uncharted deep sea and

subterranean organisms. Almost a third of all known vertebrate

species and nearly two-thirds of invertebrate species are noctur-

nal (Holker et al., 2010). In addition, day-active species, such as

humans, are dependent on ecosystem services produced, in part,under natural darkness. In fact, the distinction between diurnal

and nocturnal phases of biological processes is largely artificial,

since photosynthesis and most other biological processes active

under bright daylight include important nocturnal phases.

Ecosystem services have been proposed as a useful concept for

understanding and managing the environmental challenges in

coupled socio-ecological systems (Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005).

Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits that people obtain

from ecosystems (MEA, 2005). Not all functions of ecosystems are

perceived as benefits. Those functions that are perceived

as negative for human well-being can be labelled ecosystem

disservices (Lyytimaki and Sipila, 2009). These include economic

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Ecosystem Services

2212-0416/$- see front matter& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001

n Tel.: 358 400 148 856; fax:358 9 5490 2190.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Ecosystem Services 3 (2013) e44e48
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoserhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoserhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.001http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoserhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser


2/5

losses, health and security risks and nuisances caused by floods

and fires, pests and vector-borne diseases, and invasive or

unwanted species (Bixler and Floyd, 1997; Table 1). Both ecosys-

tem services and disservices often originate from ecosystems that

are modified or indirectly influenced by human actions.

Research on ecosystem services typically focuses on daytime

provision and less often human consumption of ecosystem

goods and services (MEA, 2005). This focus originates from

ecological studies that have predominantly focused on individuals

and ecosystems of terrestrial daylight (Rich and Longcore, 2006;

Holker et al., 2010). In this essay, I argue that specific attention

should be paid to natures nocturnal services both by scholars,

managers, decision-makers and the public.

In the following chapter I briefly review some of the light

pollution research related to ecosystem services. The review aims

not to give an exhaustive overview but rather to identify focal

areas for further research. In the next chapter I discuss the

challenges for the research and management of nocturnal

ecosystem services from the perspective of the shifting baseline

syndrome (Kahn and Friedman, 1995; Pauly, 1995) making most

people in urbanised or affluent regions accustomed to light-polluted night environments. I conclude with a call for transdis-

ciplinary studies and immediate action.

2. Complex and various effects of light pollution

Artificial illumination causes light pollution of various kinds,

including sky glow, light trespass, glare and light clutter. Ecolo-

gical light pollution has been defined as artificial light that alters

the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosystems (Longcore

and Rich, 2004). It has various physiological and behavioural

implications, such as disorientation, attraction or repulsion,

enhancement or distortion of communication, disruption of

periods of rest, changes in patterns of intra- and inter-speciescompetition and predation, reproductive failures in animals and

disruption of photoperiodism in plants (Rich and Longcore, 2006).

It appears that no safe level of artificial light can be determined

since very low levels of artificial light can disturb nocturnal

species. Exposure and effects are dependent on the timing,

intensity and spectra of the artificial light, as well as the

environmental conditions. For example, cloud coverage amplifies

the reflection of artificial light back to the ground from the sky

(Kyba et al., 2011). Ecological light pollution is closely related to

polarised light pollution that results from the reflection of natural

or artificial light from built surfaces (Horvath et al., 2009).

The implications of light pollution for ecosystem services are

poorly addressed by the research. In a search conducted in

October 2012, only two peer-reviewed journal articles were found

from the Thompson Reuters Web of Science by using the key

words light pollution and ecosystem service. These particular

studies included a review that mentioned light pollution as a

potential threat to pollination services by beetles (Potts et al., 2011)

and a review of the relationship between human well-being and

ecosystem services (Summers et al., 2012). Both of these studies

discussed light pollution only fleetingly. However, there are

several studies of light pollution that deal with ecosystem

services without mentioning the term (e.g., Martinell et al.,

2010). An early example is the seminal review of photopollution

by Verheijen (1985). Since the publication of the review by

Longcore and Rich (2004) and the subsequent book by Rich and

Longcore (2006) in particular, an increasing amount of studies

have been published. Web of Science identifies 324 studies with

the search string light pollution (October 2012). More than 80%

of these studies have been published since the millennium. Most

of the ecological or biological research papers focusing on light

pollution are empirical case studies describing the effects of

increased light levels on certain species.

Various individual-level effects of light pollution have been

convincingly demonstrated, but studies focusing on the popula-tion or ecosystem level are largely absent (Navara and Nelson,

2007; Rich and Longcore, 2006). In particular, little is known

about the effects on the insect populations, which are important

providers of ecosystem services and may be vulnerable to light

pollution. For example, moths are a species-rich taxon that

includes pollinators, consumers and prey items for other taxa

(Fox, 2012). It has been suspected that the size-dependent

attraction to artificial light by moth species may lead to cascading

effects for biodiversity and ecosystem services (van Langevelde

et al., 2011). However, light pollution remains uninvestigated as a

possible cause of population-level change in moths (Fox, 2012).

The species studied most thoroughly is undoubtedly Homo

sapiens. Disruption of natural circadian rhythmicity caused by

artificial light may lead to several health effects, such as elevatedrisk of breast or prostate cancer, obesity, depression, diabetes

and sleep disorders (Kloog et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2007).

The melatonin suppression effect of light exposure is well known,

but many other effects and resulting health risks are still poorly

understood, especially regarding long-term cumulative effects.

Discerning the effect of light pollution among many confounding

factors is a constitutive problem, partly because it is difficult to

find reference groups with no exposure to artificial light at night.

The challenge is further complicated because in some cases,

exposure to artificial light can serve as an antidote to ecosystem

disservices provided by the unfavourable natural pattern of light.

Medical researchers have intensively studied the effects of light

therapy provided for seasonal affective disorder (Golden et al.,

2005). Psychological, social and cultural implications of lighting

Table 1

Examples of potential nocturnal ecosystem services and disservices. The typology builds on the general level classification used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(MEA, 2005) and employs the notion of ecosystem disservice (Lyytimaki et al., 2008; Lyytimaki and Sipila, 2009).

Type of ecosystem service

Supporting Regulating Provisioning Cultural

Ecosystem

services

fromnatural

darkness

Nocturnal processes related to

nutrient cycling, soil formation,

primary production, etc. (Daily, 1997;Potts et al., 2011).

Nocturnal processes related to disease

regulation, pollination, water purification,

etc. (Martinell et al., 2010; Potts et al.,2011).

Goods harvested at night-time,

e.g., nocturnal birds for

exploitation and fish from night-time fishing (Hamilton et al.,

2012).

Nocturnal nature watching

and recreation, including

observing celestial objectsfrom nature (Marn andJafari,

2007).

Ecosystem

disservices

resulting

from lack

of

darkness

Disruption of supporting processes,

e.g., nutrient cycling in lakes due to

impact of light on vertical movement

of plankton (Moore et al., 2000).

Disruption of regulating processes, e.g.,

increase in vector-borne diseases and health

problems resulting from disruptions of

circadian cycles (Barghini and de Medeiros,

2010; Frick and Tallamy, 1996).

Reduction of goods harvested

during the night and lower yields

of goods harvested in the daytime

(Potts et al., 2011; Fox, 2012).

Deprivation of human

experiences (Marn andJafari,

2007).

J. Lyytimaki / Ecosystem Services 3 (2013) e44e48 e45


3/5

have been widely studied, but these approaches are largely

isolated from environmentally oriented research addressing light

as potential pollutant (e.g., Ekirch, 2005).

Ecologists have studied light pollution predominantly as a

stress factor to natural species. Some direct individual-level

consequences of light pollution, such as bird collisions with

lighted obstacles both on land (Longcore et al., 2008) and at sea

(Bocetti, 2011; Merkel and Johansen, 2011) can be estimated with

reasonable accuracy, but indirect consequences are difficult toassess (Rich and Longcore, 2006). A well-known effect of light

pollution is disorientation of sea turtle hatchlings, which causes

them to turn towards land. Despite decades of research, profound

uncertainties remain. For example, recent research has suggested

that differences in the visual behaviour among different popula-

tions of sea turtles of the same species may exist (Fritsches, 2012).

Important effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services

probably occur through various indirect functional and beha-

vioural effects that are elusive and difficult to assess. Further-

more, in most cases it is not possible to reliably determine the

importance of light pollution in relation to other risks. Light

pollution typically occurs together with other environmental

stressors caused by human activities such as physical disturbance,

noise, chemical pollution and fragmentation of habitats.

Not all species suffer from light pollution. Diurnal species

capable of exploiting artificial light may extend their foraging into

nocturnal hours and predators may more easily detect the prey.

For example, light pollution may improve the foraging conditions

of intertidal areas for waders relying primarily on visual cues

(Santos et al., 2010). The improved short-term success of species

may lead to long-term effects that cascade through food webs and

potentially decrease the resilience of the ecosystem.

Artificial light can also be used as a tool for ecosystem

management, as shown by experiences from fisheries manage-

ment (Johnson et al., 2005). However, this use of light may also

produce unwanted consequences. For example, ultraviolet light

insect traps targeted at biting flies or other nuisance insects can

be lethal for other insects that are predators or parasitoids (Frick

and Tallamy, 1996). Hence, the use of these traps may lead to adecrease in regulating ecosystem services. Artificial lighting

that attracts insects may also increase the risk of vector-borne

diseases. Relationships between increasing artificial illumination

and vector-borne diseases are complex, since night lighting

promotes new lifestyles that may lead to new modes of disease

transmission (Barghini and de Medeiros, 2010; Dunn, 2010).

To summarise, the potential effects of light pollution on

ecosystem services are complex and varied (Table 1). The changes

in species composition and loss of light-sensitive species and

genotypes may lead to a decrease in supporting and regulating

ecosystem services (Holker et al., 2010). This in turn can lead to a

decrease in provisional services. The generation and consumption

of cultural ecosystem services is mainly determined by the value

positions related to the unlit environment and the opportunitiesfor safe and pleasant experiences of natural darkness (Marn and

Jafari, 2007; Lyytimaki et al., 2008). Lack of such opportunities may

lead to the extinction of human experience, which has been

identified as a potential root cause of biodiversity loss ( Pyle, 1978).

3. Shifting baseline of night experience

Almost forty years ago, based on the results from the mapping

of light pollution situation in Ontario, Canada, astronomer Richard

Berry lamented that, Light pollution is so prevalent, in fact, that

many amateurs of high school age have never seen a non-

degraded sky and react to rather badly degraded skies with great

excitement. (Berry, 1976, p. 111). More recently, Cinzano et al.

(2001) estimated that about 40% of the population of the United

States and almost 20% of that of the European Union live in areas

where the average human eye is incapable of developing night

vision. In other words, a significant proportion of the population

is unable to directly sense natural darkness.

Consequently, modern people are likely to suffer from a

shifting baseline syndrome caused by lack of direct experiences

of night environments free of light pollution. Shifting baseline

syndrome refers to the changing human perceptions of biologicalsystems due to loss of experience of past conditions ( Kahn and

Friedman, 1995; Pauly, 1995). Simply put, people may view the

current situation as the typical or normal state, even when the

ecosystem is considerably degraded compared to earlier states.

Loss of the night sky is likely to cause both generational and

personal amnesia (Kahn et al., 2009; Papworth et al., 2009).

Generational amnesia occurs because younger generations have

not experienced and are not aware of past environmental condi-

tions. Personal amnesia occurs when individuals forget their own

experiences.

Shifting the baseline of public (and professional) perceptions

towards brighter nights has major implications for the manage-

ment of nocturnal ecosystem services. People surrounded by

constant artificial night lighting lack the possibilities for direct

contact with natural ecosystems and may experience natural

darkness as unnatural, unpleasant and unsafe (Bixler and Floyd,

1997; Ekirch, 2005). For example, street and road lighting is often

considered a natural part of urban and semi-urban scenery, even

at times when traffic is absent (Lyytimaki et al., 2012). Urban

lifestyles are characterised by the extensive use of electric light and

an increased amount of time spent in indoor spaces, as well as

increased exposure to information delivered through information

and communication technologies (Fig. 1; Pilgrim et al., 2008; Kahn

et al., 2009; Lyytimaki, 2012). Importantly, the modern entertain-

ment industry from horror movies to TV series and computer

games regenerates the evolutionary rooted cultural connotations

of natural darkness as something untamed, unsafe, evil and even

devilish (Packer et al., 2011). At the same time, the use of lighting

in urban design, advertising, art works, decorating and celebrationcreates connotations of safety and security, prosperity, pleasure

and brilliance (Jakle, 2001; Ekirch, 2005; Koslofsky, 2011).

Lack of directcontact with

naturallynocturnalnature

Perception oflight-polluted

night asnatural

Increased feartowards unlitgreen areas

Increasedtime spent

indoors duringdarkness

Increased use of ICTfor entertainment

Use of ICT in

environmental

communication

Urbanisation,

technological

development

Fig. 1. Proposed vicious circle of shifting baseline related to nocturnal nature.

Information and communication technology (ICT) can strengthen the vicious circle

or provide a potential breaking point. Urbanisation and technological develop-

ment are key driving forces. (Based on: Pilgrim et al. (2008), Lyytimaki (2012)).

J. Lyytimaki / Ecosystem Services 3 (2013) e44e48e46


4/5

Thus, modern urban lifestyles are prone to feeding public

impressions of unlit green areas as sources of ecosystem dis-

services rather than services. This is likely to increase public

demands for stronger illumination of streets, parks, squares,

gardens and other outdoor areas, which, in turn, may induce

demands for adding new lights in the remaining unlit areas

(Fig. 1). This hampers the efforts aimed at kerbing the growth of

light pollution, not to mention attempts to remove lights that are

considered unnecessary or even harmful. Because of prejudicesand misunderstandings, initiatives that incorporate restrictions

on the use of light but which ultimately aim for less costly and

safer, more efficient and enjoyable outdoor lighting, often face

public criticism (Mizon, 2012).

To overcome the shifting baseline syndrome caused by ubi-

quitous artificial light at night, different forms of forgetting and

unawareness should be taken into account (Lyytimaki et al.,

2012). The question is partially about false awareness, referring

to a situation where an actor believes that all relevant informa-

tion is possessed, even though in reality the information is

insufficient, inaccurate, outdated, misunderstood or erroneous.

For example, childrens alienation from nocturnal nature provides

opportunities for teachers to use darkness as an exciting resource

in environmental education. The question is also about the

perceived imbalance between the possibilities and the require-

ments to act (Lyytimaki et al., 2012). The changes needed may be

considered too radical and the resources for inducing the changes

too low. In particular, widely held positive perceptions towards

lighting may prevent people from publicly stating any personal

reservations about artificial lighting, even when badly designed or

implemented lighting decreases human well-being.

4. Challenges of the nocturnal ecosystem management

The fundamental importance of natural darkness to ecosystem

functioning and the widespread use of artificial night lighting

suggests that light pollution should be considered one of the key

global environmental changes. In order to manage this environ-mental change, the public, managers and decision-makers should

be better informed about the key consequences of light pollution

for ecosystem functions. Unfortunately, most of the existing

knowledge is related to individual-level effects. Therefore, a call

for scotobiology the science of biological systems that depend

upon darkness to function normally (Bidwell and Goering., 2004)

should be expanded towards a call for scotoecology explicating

long-term population-level consequences of light pollution and

their relevance to ecosystem services.

Active outreach activities are needed, particularly in order to

overcome the shifting baseline syndrome related to the wide-

spread lighting of the night. Children born today face a double

challenge caused by lifestyle changes related to increasing urba-

nisation and environmental changes, including light pollution(Fig. 1). However, producing and disseminating scientific infor-

mation on the past situations and long-term ecosystem-level

effects of light pollution is not enough. Public debate is needed

because determining the characteristics of adequate, pleasant and

safe illumination is partly a value-based question that cannot be

solved by scientific insights alone. This calls for a transdisciplin-

ary approach, taking into account not only knowledge from

different disciplines but also integrating non-academic expertise

(Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).

Natural darkness should be seen as an asset and a resource for

the viability of ecosystems and human well-being. Examples of

this appreciation are already seen in various dark sky preserves

that serve both as nature protection areas and tourist destina-

tions. Restoring the complete natural darkness into urban areas is,

however, an unattainable and in most cases an undesirable goal.

Instead, urban ecosystems should be understood and managed as

novel ecosystems characterised by at least some impact from

artificial light. However, urban areas do not need to be dominated

by constant bright lights (Falchi et al., 2011; Mizon, 2012). The

adverse implications of light pollution to human health and

ecosystem services can be greatly alleviated through careful use

of lighting technology and restrictions on the intensity, spectral

quality and timing of the light.

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my gratitude to three anonymous reviewers

for their insightful comments.

References

Barghini, A., de Medeiros, B.A.S., 2010. Artificial lighting as a vector attractant andcause of disease diffusion. Environmental Health Perspectives 118,15031506.

Berry, R.L., 1976. Light pollution in Southern Ontario. Journal of the RoyalAstronomical Society of Canada 70, 97115.

Bidwell, T., Goering, P., 2004. Scotobiology: the biology of darkness. Global ChangeNewsLetter 58, 1415.

Bixler, R.D., Floyd, M.F., 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable.Environment and Behavior 29, 443467.

Bocetti, C.I., 2011. Cruise ships as a source of svian mortality during fall migration.Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123, 176178.

Chepesiuk, R., 2009. Missing the dark: health effects of light pollution. Environ-mental Health Perspectives 117, A20A27.

Cinzano, P., Falchi, F., Elvidge, C.D., 2001. The first World Atlas of the artificial nightsky brightness. Monthy Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 328,689707.

Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Natures Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosys-tems. Island Press, New York.

Dunn., R.R., 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken realitythat nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42, 555557.

Ekirch, A.R., 2005. At Days Close: Night in Times Past. W.W. Norton, New York.Falchi, F., Cinzano, P., Elvidge, C.D., Keith, D.M., Haim, A., 2011. Limiting the impact

of light pollution on human health, environment and stellar visibility. Journalof Environmental Management 92, 27142722.

Fouquet, R., Pearson, P.J.G., 2006. Seven centuries of energy services: the price anduse of lighting in the United Kingdom (13002000). Energy Journal 21,139177.

Fox, R., 2012. The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes. InsectConservation and Diversity , http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.x.

Frick, T.B., Tallamy, D.W., 1996. Density and diversity of nontarget insects killed bysuburban electric insect traps. Entomological News 107, 7782.

Fritsches, K.A., 2012. Australian Loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings do not avoidyellow. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 45, 7989.

Golden, R.N., Gaynes, B.N., Ekstrom, R.D., Hamer, R.M., Jacobsen, F.M., Suppes, T.,Wisner, K.L., Nemeroff, C.B., 2005. The efficacy of light therapy in thetreatment of mood disorders: a review and meta-analysis of the evidence.American Journal of Psychiatry 162, 656662.

Hamilton, R.J., Giningele, M., Aswani, S., Ecochard, J.L., 2012. Fishing in the dark-local knowledge, night spearfishing and spawning aggregations in the WesternSolomon Islands. Biological Conservation 145, 246257.

Horvath, G., Kriska, G., Malik, P., Robertson, B., 2009. Polarized light pollution: anew kind of ecological photopollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environ-

ment 7, 317325.Holker, F., Wolter, C., Perkin, E.K., Tockner, K., 2010. Light pollution as abiodiversity threat. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25, 681682.

Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy,W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E. (Eds.), 2008. Handbook ofTransdisciplinary Research. Springer, Dordrecht.

Jakle, J.A., 2001. City Lights: Illuminating the American Night. Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore.

Johnson, P.N., Bouchard, K., Goetz, F.A., 2005. Effectiveness of strobe lights forreducing juvenile salmonid entrainment into a navigation lock. North Amer-ican Journal of Fisheries Management 25, 491501.

Kahn, P.H., Friedman, B., 1995. Environmental views and values of children in aninner-city black community. Child Development 66, 14031417.

Kahn, P.H., Severson, R.L., Ruckert, J.H., 2009. The human relation with nature andtechnological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18, 3742.

Kloog, I., Haim, A., Stevens, R.G., Portnov, B.A., 2009. Global co-distribution of lightat night (LAN) and cancers of prostate, colon, and lung in men. ChronobiologyInternational 26, 108125.

Koslofsky, C., 2011. Evenings Empire: A History of the Night in Early Modern

Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

J. Lyytimaki / Ecosystem Services 3 (2013) e44e48 e47
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.x


5/5

Kyba, C.C.M., Ruhtz, T., Fischer, J., Holker, F., 2011. Cloud coverage acts as anamplifier for ecological light pollution in urban ecosystems. PLoS One 6,e17307.

Longcore, T., Rich, C., 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 2, 191198.

Longcore, T., Rich, C., Gauthreaux Jr, S.A., 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnalmigrants: a review and meta-analysis. Auk 125, 486493.

Lyytimaki, J., 2012. Indoor ecosystem services: bringing ecology and peopletogether. Human Ecology Review 19, 7076.

Lyytimaki, J., Petersen, L.K., Normander, B., Bezak, P., 2008. Nature as a nuisance?

Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environmental Sciences5, 161172.

Lyytimaki, J., Sipila, M., 2009. Hopping on one legthe challenge of ecosystemdisservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 8,309315.

Lyytimaki, J., Tapio, P., Assmuth, T., 2012. Unawareness in environmental protec-tion: the case of light pollution from traffic. Land Use Policy 29, 598604.

Marn, C., Jafari, J. (Eds.), 2007. Starlight Initiative & Instituto De Astrofisica DeCanarias. Canary Islands, Spain.

Martinell, M.C., Dotterl, S., Blanche, C., Rovira, A., Masso, S., Bosch, M., 2010.Nocturnal pollination of the endemic Silene sennenii (Caryophyllaceae): anendangered mutualism? Plant Ecology 211, 203218.

MEA, 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Merkel, F.R., Johansen, K.L., 2011. Light-induced bird strikes on vessels in South-west Greenland. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 23302336.

Mizon, B., 2012. Light Pollution: Responses and Remedies, second ed. Springer,New York.

Moore, M., Pierce, S., Walsh, H., Kvalvik, S., Lim, J., 2000. Urban light pollutionalters the diel vertical migration of Daphnia. Verhandlungen der Internatio-nalen Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 27, 14.

Navara, K.J., Nelson, R.J., 2007. The dark side of light at night: physiological,epidemiological, and ecological consequences. Journal of Pineal Research 43,215224.

Packer, C., Swanson, A., Ikanda, D., Kushnir, H., 2011. Fear of darkness, the full

moon and the nocturnal ecology of African lions. PLoS One 6, e22285.Papworth, S.K., Rist, J., Coad, L., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2009. Evidence for shifting

baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2, 93100.Pauly, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution 10, 430.Pilgrim, S.E., Cullen, L.C., Smith, D.J., Pretty, J., 2008. Ecological knowledge is lost in

wealthier communities and countries. Environmental Science and Technology

42, 10041009.Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Bommarco, R., Felicioli, A., Fischer, M., Jokinen, P., Kleijn,

D., Klein, A.M., Kunin, W.E., Neumann, P., Penev, L.D., Petanidou, T., Rasmont,

P., Roberts, S.P.M., Smith, H.G., Sorensen, P.B., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vaissiere,

B.E., Vila, M., Vujic, A., Woyciechowski, M., Zobel, M., Settele, J., Schweiger, O.,

2011. Developing European conservation and mitigation tools for pollination

services: approaches of the STEP (Status and Trends of European Pollinators)

project. Journal of Apicultural Research 50, 152164.Pyle, R.M., 1978. The extinction of experience. Horticulture 56, 6467.Rich, C., Longcore, T. (Eds.), 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night

Lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC.Santos, C.D., Miranda, A.C., Granadeiro, J.P., Lourenc-o, P.M., Saraiva, S., Palmeirim,

J.M., 2010. Effects of artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders.

Acta Oecologica 36, 166172.Summers, J.K., Smith, L.M., Case, J.L., Linthurst, R.A., 2012. A review of the elements

of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem

services. Ambio 41, 327340.Stevens, R.G., Blask, D.E., Brainard, G.C., Hansen, J., Lockley, S.W., Provencio, I., Rea,

M.S., Reinlib, L., 2007. Meeting report: the role of environmental lighting and

circadian disruption in cancer and other diseases. Environmental Health

Perspectives 115, 13571362.van Langevelde, F., Ettema, J.A., Donners, M., WallisDeVries, M.F., Groenendijk, D.,

2011. Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of

moths. Biological Conservation 144, 22742281.Verheijen, F., 1985. Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial control systems fail

to cope with. Incidents, causation, remedies. Experimental Biology 44, 118.

J. Lyytimaki / Ecosystem Services 3 (2013) e44e48e48

Documents

Nature’s nocturnal services- Light pollution as a non-recognised challenge for ecosystem services research and management