Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33489286›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

A linear systems approach to protect the night sky: implications for current and future regulations.

Fabio Falchi, Salvador Bará

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fabio FalchiDept. de Física Aplicada, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.
Salvador BaráDept. de Física Aplicada, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1274-8043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The persistent increase of artificial light emissions is causing a progressive brightening of the night sky in most regions of the world. This process is a threat for the long-term sustainability of the scientific and educational activity of ground-based astronomical observatories operating in the optical range. Huge investments in building, scientific and technical workforce, equipment and maintenance can be at risk if the increasing light pollution levels hinder the capability of carrying out the top-level scientific observations for which these key scientific infrastructures were built. Light pollution has other negative consequences, as e.g. biodiversity endangering and the loss of the starry sky for recreational, touristic and preservation of cultural heritage. The traditional light pollution mitigation approach is based on imposing conditions on the photometry of individual sources, but the aggregated effects of all sources in the territory surrounding the observatories are seldom addressed in the regulations. We propose that this approach shall be complemented with a top-down, ambient artificial skyglow immission limits strategy, whereby clear limits are established to the admissible deterioration of the night sky above the observatories. We describe the general form of the indicators that can be employed to this end, and develop linear models relating their values to the artificial emissions across the territory. This approach can be easily applied to other protection needs, like e.g. to protect nocturnal ecosystems, and it is expected to be useful for making informed decisions on public lighting, in the context of wider spatial planning projects.

Indexed as

astronomical observatoriesenvironmental protectionlightinglight pollutionsite assessmentspatial planning

Identifiers

PMID33489286
PMCPMC7813237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.