Posted on No Comments on Skyglow or skyfall? Shining a light on light pollution impacts at the Olympic Games (2)

Skyglow or skyfall? Shining a light on light pollution impacts at the Olympic Games (2)

Light pollution is perceived by many countries to be a happy problem. Much like how the invention of the light bulb was viewed as a breakthrough in modern technology, the flooding of bright lights amidst a dark sky is applauded as a milestone in economic development. Yet, things are rapidly changing amidst the emergence of long-term ecological impacts associated with artificial light overuse.

So, how does light pollution harm wildlife? The answer lies in the occurrence of skyglow, a phenomenon where artificial light projected into the sky is reflected by atmospheric matter, creating a bright halo (Ngarambe, Lim and Kim, 2018). As skyglow creates the illusion of a daytime-like sky, it can disrupt the migratory and feeding patterns of many wildlife species, particularly birds and bats as they are drawn to light (Chepesiuk, 2009). More worryingly, skyglow does not only affect wildlife in the immediate region where light pollution is produced, but can spread to nearly 64 kilometres away. This reinforces the growing severity of light pollution, and the pressing need to regulate it at the Olympic Games where artificial light use is widespread.

The occurrence of skyglow has significantly altered the migratory patterns of nocturnal birds, leading to high frequencies of collisions into light-emitting skyscrapers (Masterson, 2018)

While studies on the impact of Olympic light pollution on wildlife behaviour are limited as such behaviour is shaped by many environmental factors, it remains fair to argue that the Olympic Games have adverse ecological impacts. Shortly after the extravagant 2012 London Olympic Games were held, the protected Myotis lucifugus and Eptesicus fuscus bat species faced drastic population declines between 41 to 96% (Stone, Harris and Jones, 2015). This was attributed to the bats’ increased exposure to artificial light, which caused them to abandon their roosts and face predation (Stone, Harris and Jones, 2015). Similarly, the Turdus merula species of birds in England showed no signs of reproductive activity after being exposed to nighttime light, as they were under chronic stress (Dominoni, Quetting and Partecke, 2013). Therefore, while other factors such as noise and temperature could also have contributed to such phenomena, the role of sky glow — and the rapid increase in brightly-lit breeding grounds — is undeniable.

This does not mean that all hope is lost for wildlife and we will see skyfall, however. Certain host countries, such as China, have taken steps to mitigate light pollution at the Olympic Games. At the recent 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games, nighttime construction work near the biodiversity-rich Yanqing area was restricted to prevent illumination of natural habitats (Beijing 2022, n.d.). While such measures appear insignificant, they nonetheless help in reducing ecological damage caused by light pollution, and this constitutes a crucial first step in protecting wildlife species. More importantly, the intangible nature of light pollution makes it challenging to quantify the (potentially horrifying) extent of impacts, which reinforces the need to curb light pollution — and its associated impacts — as much as possible.

References

Beijing 2022. (n.d.). Beijing 2022 Pre-Games Sustainability Report [Press release]. https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Olympic-Games/Beijing-2022/Sustainability/Beijing-2022-Pre-Games-Sustainability-Report.pdf 

Chepesiuk, R. (2009). Missing the dark: health effects of light pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(1). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.117-a20 

Dominoni, D. M., Quetting, M., & Partecke, J. (2013). Long-term effects of chronic light pollution on seasonal functions of European blackbirds (Turdus merula). PLoS One, 8(12), e85069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085069 

Masterson, A. (2018). Birds yearn for the bright lights of cities [Online image]. Cosmos Magazine. https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/birds/birds-yearn-for-the-bright-lights-of-cities/ 

Ngarambe, J., Lim, H. S., & Kim, G. (2018). Light pollution: is there an environmental Kuznets curve?. Sustainable cities and society, 42, 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.07.018 

Stone, E. L., Harris, S., & Jones, G. (2015). Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of challenges and solutions. Mammalian Biology, 80(3), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.02.004

Posted on No Comments on Skyglow or skyfall? Shining a light on light pollution impacts at the Olympic Games (1)

Skyglow or skyfall? Shining a light on light pollution impacts at the Olympic Games (1)

When we talk about the types of pollution affecting the Olympic Games, most of us might think of air and water pollution, and for good reason. After all, pollutants are most commonly transported through air and water mediums, resulting in their impacts being easily observed when contaminated air and water are consumed. Similarly, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2021) seemingly hints toward air and water pollution when defining pollutants as substances that “adversely affect the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals or ecosystems”.  

However, such perceptions of pollution are restrictive, and overlook the impact that intangible but pervasive entities — such as light — have on biota. In recent years, light pollution has been increasingly identified as one of the most harmful types of pollution, as it not only worsens sleep patterns, but also disrupts wildlife behaviour (Chepesiuk, 2009). It has also become increasingly common amidst the general rise in affluence levels and construction of brightly-lit cityscapes worldwide (Chepesiuk, 2009). 

Light pollution has become increasingly pervasive, amidst the excessive use of artificial lighting to light up urban centres and homes (Coetzee, 2019)

It is thus of little wonder that the Olympic Games — being an internationally-recognised mega-event that seeks to impress through the use of grand infrastructure and spectacular displays — is a major producer of light pollution. From the launching of fireworks to end the Olympic Games on a high, to the liberal use of electric lights to illuminate venues and optimise spectator experience, artificial light is found almost everywhere. This is unfortunately to the point that it overwhelms the visual senses and eventually, the human brain.

A case in point would be the 2012 London Olympic Games, which was hailed as one of the most “thoughtfully planned” but light-intensive Olympic Games in history. As reported by LEDs Magazine (2012), nearly 70000 LED modules were positioned beside spectator seats, 14000 lamps were located within the Olympic Stadium. This was not inclusive of the additional 25000 LED modules used for nighttime lighting at the Olympic Park (LEDs Magazine, 2012). While the use of such light was arguably necessary as it made holding competitions at night possible, their excessive use had brought about sleep disorders amongst the general population. 67% of adults reported disrupted sleep while 31% suffered from insomnia, as their overexposure to artificial light had led to decreasing pineal melatonin production and control over circadian rhythms (Falchi et al., 2011). In other words, the retina was increasingly hit by light photons, causing the mind to be overstimulated (Chepesiuk, 2009).

The massive numbers of LED modules and lamps used at the 2012 London Olympic Games was associated with increasing sleep disorder rates amongst British adults (Peralta, 2012)

Hence, it is clear that light pollution has adverse long-term impacts on human health that — rather interestingly — do not discriminate on the basis of socioeconomic status and race. Rather, light pollution is most commonly experienced in developed countries (Gallaway, Olsen and Mitchell, 2010), where the use of artificial light for urban landscapes is regarded as a hallmark of economic progress. Unfortunately, the same does not apply for wildlife, with both sea and land species being equally vulnerable to light pollution impacts. With that, do look out for my next post on this dark issue!

References

Chepesiuk, R. (2009). Missing the dark: health effects of light pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(1). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.117-a20 

Coetzee, B. (2019). Light pollution: the dark side of keeping the lights on [Online image]. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/light-pollution-the-dark-side-of-keeping-the-lights-on-113489 

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. Journal of environmental management, 92(10), 2714-2722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.029 

Gallaway, T., Olsen, R. N., & Mitchell, D. M. (2010). The economics of global light pollution. Ecological economics, 69(3), 658-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.003 

LEDs Magazine. (2012, August). LED lighting plays prominent role in Olympic Games. LEDs Magazine. https://www.ledsmagazine.com/leds-ssl-design/driver-ics/article/16698368/led-lighting-plays-prominent-role-in-olympic-games 

Peralta, E. (2012). As It Happened: The London Olympics’ Opening Ceremony [Online image]. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetorch/2012/07/27/157501561/live-blog-the-opening-ceremony 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021, July 15). Report on the Environment Glossary. https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/roe-glossary#:~:text=into%20a%20waterway.-,pollutant%3A,substances%20introduced%20by%20human%20activities.