Across the three streams, most policy documents examined the problem stream and the policy stream, suggesting that the policy process for the creation of dark sky parks is oriented towards defining the problem (light pollution) and solving the problem with policy options like the creation of Dark Sky Parks.
5.1 PROBLEM STREAM
The most important problems that policy makers are engaging in night sky conservation involve three ideas: the importance and urgency of protecting natural lightscapes, social/cultural impacts of light pollution, and the challenges and tradeoffs with development (Table 3).
URGENCY OF LIGHT POLLUTION
In 59% of our data, visible and dark natural lightscapes were described as an imperiled resource, along with the need to take action to preserve it. Light pollution was described as the “glare of civilization,” a problem that is an environmental issue, with increasing recognition that the dark night sky is one of the world’s fastest disappearing resources (Bauers 2007).
Many statements focused on how celestial phenomena that used to be visible with the bare eye or a basic telescope were now only visible following a several hour-long drive. The following statement illustrates this point,
“When my students and I look up at night from [...] southern California [...] we can usually count 12 stars in the sky. However, less than a five hour drive from Los Angeles there's a place where anyone can look up and see the universe the way everyone could 100 years ago."
Many statements framing the dark night sky as a disappearing resource emphasize celestial phenomena that require a multi-hour drive to see. Many comments emphasized the added urgency of natural lightscape conservation in protected areas like National Parks, citing the loss of a dark sky as an urgent problem. This sentiment is represented in the following statement,
“Artificial light is pouring into national parks across the country, not only diminishing the quality of the night sky for stargazers, but affecting flora and fauna that depend on dark nights for survival.” (Peterson 2012).
Another representative statement notes how one of the most isolated National Parks in the world, Death Valley National Park, cannot escape the problem of a loss of a dark night sky, “Even Death Valley is affected by light from Las Vegas, which is 120 miles away.”
LIGHT POLLUTION FROM URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The next common theme that emerged in our data was how the increasing problem of light pollution is caused by urban growth and development, a problem mentioned in 47% of our data. Statements noted that fast-growing cities have caused the number of stars visible to people in their yards to be a fraction of what they used to be able to see.
“[Our park is] perhaps the last best refuge of the natural night sky east of the Mississippi. Almost everywhere else, Baltimore included, urban light pollution has washed out the star-choked night sky that our ancestors knew so well. Few of today's children have ever seen what the night sky really looks like.” (Roylance 2008).
Light pollution from urban development was especially salient in the fast-growing American West, as is seen in the following statement:
“Visitors come from Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and say, 'I had no idea this is what that night sky looks like.' Those visitors are often inspired to implement simple changes at home like shielding lights or turning them off to improve the night sky in their own communities.” (Greenwire 2012).
Urban development in the American West is increasing at the fastest rate ever recorded with 8 of the 10 fastest growing cities occurring West of the Mississippi River (U.S. Census 2020).
HUMAN IMPACTS OF LIGHT POLLUTION
The human impacts of light pollution were in 55% of the messages in the problem stream. These included negative impacts to human sleep patterns, wasted home energy costs, and losses of shared cultural experiences like the inability to see celestial phenomena like the seven stars of the Little Dipper. Decision-makers noted that when reducing light pollution, there were often “win-win” impacts in other dimensions of conservation, for example:
“The benefits go beyond stargazing. Natural Bridges [National Park] has reduced its operational costs and energy use by upgrading its outdoor lighting, creating a better habitat for nocturnal wildlife, and improving visibility and safety at night,” says park Superintendent Corky Hays (Owen 2007).
Data mentioned a type of spiritual or aesthetic tragedy occurring when people miss experiences such as observing dark night skies. The following statement is representative of this idea:
“Cherry Springs State Park [...] has a night sky so free from any form of light pollution that you can actually behold the heavens in all their celestial glory [...] We try to get people out of town because most people have no idea what a night sky looks like.” (Crable 2001).
Also present in the problem stream were concerns over the loss of human heritage and our modern links to ancient cultures that viewed dark skies and were inspired to create mythology. Additionally, there are “risks for obesity, depression, sleep disorders, diabetes, breast cancer” and other human health concerns related to artificial light pollution (National Park Service n.d.-g).
5.2 POLICY STREAM
There were 328 messages pertaining to the policy stream, which highlight the specific actions that policymakers can take to preserve natural lightscapes (Table 4). The most important themes in the policy stream were 1) designation of Dark Sky Parks as a tool to decrease light pollution, 2) the traits that need to be in place for a park to be a Dark Sky Park, and 3) specific ideas for engaging the public and decision-makers about Dark Sky Parks through education.
Process For Dark Sky Designation
Important policy entrepreneurs for natural lightscapes include 1) beneficiaries of dark sky tourism such as communities, businesses, politicians; 2) researchers like astronomers and scientists; 3) resource managers such as park decision-makers and staff, policy-makers at agencies like the Department of the Interior; and 4) the public. The most prominent actor shaping dark sky policy to conserve natural lightscapes is the IDA through their International Dark Sky Places Program. Founded in 2001, this organization assists communities and protected areas to preserve dark skies through responsible lighting and educational programs to increase voluntary activities that reduce light pollution.
The cornerstone of this movement is the creation of protected areas known as International Dark Sky Places. International Dark Sky Places can occur on public or private land (so long as there is public access) where there is protection of night sky visibility, defined as visibility of the Milky Way with the unaided eye. This visibility is ensured through management actions (International Dark-Sky Association 2021a). The specific types of Dark Sky Places can include Dark Sky Communities, Parks, Reserves, Sanctuaries, and Urban Places (Table 4).
Of the many types of Dark Sky Places, we focus on Dark Sky Parks as it was the policy solution mentioned the most by policy entrepreneurs in our data. While the requirements for each type of Dark Sky Place is different, the purpose of such places is managing in a way that ensures designation as a Dark Sky Place. To receive designation as a Dark Sky Park a site must 1) create a detailed report of specific policies and actions to maintain low levels of light pollution, known as a lighting inventory and plan; 2) demonstrate community support for dark sky protection; 3) have a measurement program in place enacted by the park, private landowners, or another organization (e.g. a university) to measure light pollution; 4) understand current and future threats to dark skies; 5) have leadership structures in place to restore dark skies; 6) be committed to public education (e.g. putting signage in place); 7) and have cooperative agreements with at least two nearby cities that result in agreements to stem light pollution in the park (International Dark-Sky Association 2019a). Regular updates are submitted to the IDA by park managers and authorities to ensure protections for night skies are ongoing to keep designations in place.
The designation process for a Dark Sky Park by the IDA was mentioned the most in the policy stream, in 86% of the messages. The IDA’s impact in the policy stream is significant, with its ideas for dark sky conservation forming nearly the entirety of the policy stream. Its formation dates back to 1988 when a group of astronomers united to protect the nighttime environment and the human heritage of night skies. Now, over two decades later, the IDA is the primary source of ideas for conserving natural lightscapes.
The first Dark Sky Park in the United States was designated in 2007 at Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah, with over 60 designated places as of 2022. To have a location designated, typically a small group of interested people nominate their location with an application, with different forms of Dark Sky Places having different guidelines and requirements based on particular land management traits, sizes, and sky qualities. The application process takes 1-3 years, and requires site visits by IDA experts to ensure that thresholds for night sky visibility are met and certain light reduction ideas in the policy stream are implemented.
U.S. Dark Sky Park efforts began in 2007, with leadership from federal and state governments taking actions to be officially designated by the IDA. Such designations have been increasing since 2007 (Figure 2). Dark Sky Parks tend to be located in the Western U.S. and are concentrated in the Southwest, away from urban areas, although they are located throughout the country (Figure 3). As of 2022, there are 34 federally managed Dark Sky Parks, including those within National Parks, Preserves, Monuments,[3] among other National Park Service-managed lands that have been officially designated as Dark Sky Parks by the IDA as of 2021 (National Park Service n.d.-c).[4]
Education And Engagement
Public engagement on night sky conservation and recreation is taking place across federal and state governments as a key part of the policy stream. In individual parks such as Bryce Canyon National Park, evening programs implemented by park staff educate visitors using telescopes, with up to 10% of visitors experiencing this form
of education (Collison and Poe 2013). The National Park Service has a dedicated educational web page for night sky recreation and explains how this resource is culturally, ecologically, and economically valuable (National Park Service n.d.-d). The Night Sky Team is a governmental research group within the National Park Service that researches and documents the effects of light pollution to track the availability of this resource (National Park Service n.d.-e). The Night Sky Team collaborates with federal managers in the NPS Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division. This working relationship provides specialized technical guidance, develops policies and plans for the reduction of light pollution (such as retrofitting light fixtures), and engages in scientific stewardship to understand and protect natural skies in parks (National Park Service n.d.-f; Turina 2018). State governments have since begun to develop their own recreational dark sky programs partnering with local astronomy groups, universities, and observatories (Texas Parks & Wildlife n.d.; Florida Department of Environmental Protection n.d.).
Scale In The Policy Stream
The ideas in the policy stream for dark sky conservation have three target audiences. First are natural resources decision-makers and managers who will implement light pollution reduction actions within their Dark Sky Park, or policy-makers that may wish to form a new Dark Sky Park but just do not know it yet. Second is a more general policy-maker who will work on local laws or ordinances to reduce light pollution at the landscape scale. Third is the individual member of the public who may visit a park, and seek to implement changes at home to combat light pollution. Thus, policy actions for dark sky conservation have three primary scales, park level policies (parks can be federal, state, or locally administered), landscape scale policy actions which impact broader jurisdictions than a single park, and individual actions which can have an aggregate impact on U.S. night skies in general.
Beginning with the park scale, the IDA has outlined a rigorous application to become certified as a Dark Sky Park, a process which includes “more than just a star-filled sky; intense long term planning, retrofitting, and preservation efforts are required to fulfill the application prerequisites” which include “a lighting management plan, examples of retrofitting/building, and intense public awareness of lighting retrofits and the night sky as a natural resource (Lipscomb 2010). Examples of retrofits can be found in the use of shields which direct light downward, energy efficient fixtures with high pressure sodium bulbs, placing lights only where they are needed, or a general reduction in wattage. Parks are creatively innovating in the policy stream. For example, Glacier National Park in the U.S. partnered with its sister park, Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada to become the first transcontinental national park to receive a Dark Sky Status. To do so, Glacier National Park retrofitted 30% of its light fixtures and actively reduced artificial light in the park (Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 74, 2017).
Ideal Traits Of Dark Sky Parks: Is Your Park Next?
The ideal qualities of Dark Sky Parks were mentioned 57.93% of the time and mentioned designating places with natural darkness the most. Dark Sky Parks are similar to UNESCO World Heritage Sites[5] in the sense that a core group of dedicated stakeholders realizes that their location may qualify, works to elicit public and policy-maker support, and submits the designation application. Policy documents outlining the ideal qualities of a Dark Sky Park may be the initial spark to inspire policy-makers to chase a designation, or stakeholders to understand what makes their Dark Sky Park qualify as such.
The IDA has three tiers of certification based on natural darkness: gold, silver and bronze (Targeted News Service 2014). Gold designated locations have visibility of the faintest stars, a lack of lighting on buildings, and several celestial phenomena visible (e.g. aurora, Milky Way, faint meteors). Glacier National Park (with its sister Canadian National Park, Waterton) achieved gold status in 2016 after a ten year designation process that saw 67% of its outdoor lighting brought into compliance, with full official designation only finalized in 2021. Silver locations have a visible Milky Way with minor or moderate illumination from artificial sources. Bronze locations have visible astronomical features, but do not meet silver designation. Other qualities of Dark Sky Parks include accessible remoteness and high elevation (Maffly 2017). Quantitative measurements known as sky quality meters (SQMs) are also used to determine Dark Sky Park designation, with SQMs measuring the darkness of the sky itself. Readings of SQMs are taken directly overhead, and the higher the number, the darker the sky, with the average Dark Sky Park rating 21.2, ranging up to the highest rating of 23 (National Park Service n.d.-h).
Policy At Landscape Scale
Landscape scale policies can include drafting model lighting ordinances which provide regulatory language requiring ideal levels in communities and natural habitats. Zones across the landscape, known as lighting zones, have upper limits to the amount of permitted light, with wildlife preserves for example having the lowest amount of permitted light and commercial zones having the highest. An example of model lighting ordinances can be found in Tucson, Arizona which adopted an ordinance governing outside lighting, and persuaded nearby cities to adopt similar ordinances (Owen 2007). Thus, in addition to the IDA as a source for policy stream ideas, jurisdictions like cities can also transmit these ideas to other cities.
Individual Action For Light Pollution
Beyond information targeted at policymakers, individual actions on the part of private citizens living anywhere can also reduce light pollution. Ideas for reducing light pollution through individual actions and governance were mentioned in 37% of our data, and were usually provided by the National Park Service. Some of these include “turning out lights when not in use, using outdoor lights only where necessary, shielding outdoor lighting so that it points downward, using warm color light bulbs such as amber or red,'' and educational programming on these practices (National Park Service n.d.-i).
5.3 POLITICS STREAM
There were 152 messages about the politics surrounding Dark Sky Parks (Table 6). Major themes included 1) public support for astrotourism and 2) competing interests (Table 6).
SUPPORT FOR ASTROTOURISM
75% of the messages contained statements of policymaker, community leader, or public-facing stakeholder support for the main economic benefit of Dark Sky Parks: astrotourism. We coded these in the politics stream because they represent public mood and include the statements of political leaders as a form of political messaging. Statements from policymakers were the most frequent, coming from political leaders from both American political parties, Democrats and Republicans, suggesting this is a bipartisan issue that transcends liberal or conservative ideologies.
Statements focused on specific programs or events in Dark Sky Parks for astrotourism, such as family focused astronomy programs. Many such programs have visitors coming from hundreds of miles away, usually due to social media coverage or exposure (Targeted News Service 2015). A representative example includes a supermoon lunar eclipse event with public opportunities to view the eclipse and hear information from park staff in Headlands International Dark Sky Park in Michigan. Policymaker statements emphasized the local economic benefits of protecting the resource. Many statements note programs in Dark Sky Parks attracted hundreds of visitors, such as in the following statement:
“One such event, held in late June, attracted more than 350 visitors, some of whom traveled from as far away as Phoenix. Data from other IDA International Dark Sky Parks suggest that neighboring communities gain tangible economic benefits from the added tourist visibility. The partnership between IDA and Arizona State Parks is expected to help improve the long-term financial prospects of many rural State Parks properties” (International Dark-Sky Association 2014).
Statements like these suggested that the inclusion of a Dark Sky Park designation has increased interest in many parks in rural areas that would otherwise not see high visitor presence. In addition to increased interest, some decision-makers noted that interest peaked beyond what park services and personnel were able to accommodate:
“Recent traditional and "viral" social media coverage has catapulted some program attendance to more than 600 participants. The heightened popularity of this internationally recognized natural treasure has placed a heavy burden on the park facilities and staff, not to mention the integrity of the experience.” (Davis 2015).
Policy-makers noted the specific economic benefits accruing to their states and localities. A representative statement in the politics stream is that of a state legislator from the Republican Party who said, “tourism experiences of all types are important for Michigan and our region, including enjoyment of a pure, undiluted night sky.” This same policymaker introduced Dark Sky Parks legislation in the state legislature of Michigan that added several thousand additional acres within a local Dark Sky Park. Another Republican lawmaker, Congressman Robert W. Bishop, known for his opposition to federal management of public lands[6], like National Parks, voiced public support for a Dark Sky Park in his home state of Utah based on its role in promoting tourism:
“It is good to see a Northern Utah venue included in the astrotourism activity that continues to grow in Southern Utah as opportunities to see the dark skies diminish in urban areas. The new designation should pay off in dividends that include increased astrotourism and continued protections for the scenic upper Ogden Valley that cradles three developing ski resorts.” (Associated Press 2015 line 67).
COMPETING INTERESTS
Statements in the politics stream also discussed interests opposed to Dark Sky Parks. These interests were typically mining, oil and gas, or urban development near a Dark Sky Park, and were mentioned in 21% of statements. A representative example from American National Park Bryce Canyon details a “fast-growing metro area less than 60 miles away and a proposed expansion of a nearby coal mine” along with the need for “developers, cities, utilities and homeowners [to] make a conscious effort to install dark-sky-friendly lighting” to protect Bryce Canyon’s dark skies (Greenwire 2012).
With the rise of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the United States, many statements discussed land use conflicts between Dark Sky Park interests and shale gas with flaring from gas extraction jeopardizing night sky views. Often, dark sky interests sought help from the federal government to author planning documents to balance competing uses. For example:
“A group of environmentalists are calling for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to compose a comprehensive leasing plan for the lower San Juan Basin in areas near Chaco Canyon National Historic Park. [BLM] is revising its resource management plan to address issues related to the development of Mancos Shale oil in southern San Juan Basin. [...] Tourists travel to Chaco specifically for its [dark sky] observatory and flaring from nearby wells could put the night sky viewing in jeopardy.”
Chaco Canyon National Historic Park is unique and interesting because it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, known for its indigenous archeological sites dating back over 1000 years. It is also surrounded by one of the most productive oil and gas basins in the world. Traditional tensions between wild spaces, habitats, and archaeological preservation vs. tanker trucks, flare stacks, and gas rigs now also involve public access to dark night skies, and tension over the park’s designation as a Dark Sky Park.
Besides dark sky advocates such as the IDA, decision-makers in the National Park Service are engaging the public about the tradeoffs between oil and gas economic reliance and dark sky conservation. For example, in light of a proposed coal mine near Bryce Canyon National Park, the National Park Service has not recommended doing away with mining plans altogether, but rather a compromise where developers, cities, utilities, and homeowners work to install dark-sky-friendly lighting.
OPPOSITION TO DARK SKY PARKS
There are some stakeholders that contest the formation of new Dark Sky Parks. These include powerful interests, such as property developers as well as mining interests. These groups argue that economic prosperity will be at stake if development and extraction are limited to conserve the dark sky. Other concerns with Dark Sky Parks focus on the lack of power to enforce certain rules, such as the brightness of reflected light. For example, Silver and Hickey discuss the world’s first Dark Sky Park in Muskoka, Ontario, Canada. They describe Dark Sky Activists as seeking a retroactive enforcement clause to regulate the brightness of lights, a demand which local politicians viewed as not-workable and a form of over-regulation. Opponents argued that there were too many by-laws to begin with, and dark sky rules would be overly burdensome. Besides a lack of popular support, the cost of replacing lights, the staff needed to check whether lights complied with regulations, and other dark sky policies remained an additional challenge (Silver and Hickey 2020).
[3] A national park contains a variety of resources and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources. A national monument is intended to preserve at least one nationally significant resource. National preserves are established primarily for the protection of certain resources. National reserves are similar to the preserves, where management may be transferred to local or state authorities. National Lakeshores and National Seashores focus on the preservation of natural values while at the same time providing water-oriented recreation. National rivers and wild and scenic riverways preserve free-flowing streams and their immediate environment with at least one outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural, or recreational value. National scenic trails are generally long distance footpaths winding through areas of natural beauty (National Park Service, n.d.-j).
[4] The U.S. National Park Service is housed within the Department of the Interior.
[5] The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designates landmarks or areas as World Heritage Sites when they have cultural, historical, or ecological significance to humanity. There is often legal protection involved with a World Heritage Site.
[6] Congressman Bishop is known to prefer privatization, selling, and transferring public lands. Critical of federal management of public lands, Bishop co-founded the Federal Land Action Group to identify ways that Congress could transfer federal public land to state and local government (Corrigan 2019).