When Night Falls: An Exploratory Study of Residents’ Perceptions of Policy Measures Regarding Extinction of Public Lighting in the ‘Heart of the Night’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is compelling due to the fact that the authors take the chance to empirically investigate the lights-off policy of a local authority in France regarding the knowledge/perception on the positive and negative effects of ALAN, the valuation of the local policy and the acceptance of an extension of the extinction policy.

I would have expected hypotheses on the outcome by the authors. Based on my own thoughts, what I would have expected, the results seem rather obvious: people looking more at the positive aspect of lighting are less positive towards restrictive policies - and vice versa. It is fair enough to empircally substantiate an (sometimes only seemingly) obvious hypotheses. I think that could be stated in the outset of the article.

In the discussion section of the article the authors put their results clearly into perspective: "But this study has the advantage over laboratory studies of being integrated into social and cultural contexts, and of preserving the complexity of reality." This makes up the value of the paper.

In my view the item safety and security and the difference between perception/feeling of safety and security and statistical evidence of safety and security is not stated clearly enough. As I understand the text, the authors take a positive relation for granted. But as far as I know the literture the relation between artificial lighting and safety and security is rather ambiguous and contested (Paul Marchant might be an author to look at).

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. See attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "When night falls: an exploratory study of residents' perceptions of policy measures regarding extinction of public lighting" deals with the issue of artificial light at night (ALAN) awareness among regular citizens. It is an actual and valid topic, as light pollution increases worldwide, and it is very hard to limit it. The paper is concise and characterized by the typical flow with understandable text. However, it is challenging to properly understand as it lacks graphics and contains much data related to the statistical analysis of the survey’s outcomes. I recommend publishing this paper after minor revisions. The remarks about possible improvements are as follows:

1/ Please present the primary outcome in the abstract.

2/ Please consider presenting the results received in some graphical form. It could be tough, but it will increase the ease of understanding of this work.

3/ Section 2.1. It is not clear what precisely the questionnaire looked like. Please provide it even as supplementary materials. It could be helpful for other cities' authorities.

4/ It makes sense to separate lines 346 to 355 as the section "Conclusion," isn't it? I would also consider emphasizing the recommendations for light pollution limitations resulting from the residents' responses.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper conducted a questionnaire survey on the practice of turning off lights at night and in the early morning to reduce light pollution. Through hierarchical multiple regression analysis, it deeply explored residents' views on public lighting policy measures (especially the policy of extending the time for turning off lights) and the influencing factors. The results showed that residents' views on the scientific knowledge of street lighting directly affected their attitudes towards extending the time for turning off lights. The results have certain innovativeness, but there are still some deficiencies.

 

Title: The title is somewhat ambiguous. It is not that all lights are turned off at night, but rather that public lighting is reduced during the early morning hours, with some street lamps being dimmed. The term "extinction" is too strong; it is merely a reduction, not a complete shutdown.

 

Abstract: The results of the questionnaire survey seem obvious and do not reflect the innovative points of this study. Further exploration of new findings is needed.

 

Keywords: Currently, there are 8 keywords that are similar in meaning. It is suggested to simplify and select typical keywords.

 

Introduction: The introduction discusses many energy-saving needs and ecological health benefits of turning off lights at night, seemingly favoring the practice. However, what are the reasons against turning off the lights? Where does the current controversy lie? Discussions on the social relationships and attitudes of residents towards public lighting are relatively scarce, failing to fully demonstrate the complexity and diversity of this issue. The theoretical framework regarding social acceptance and residents' attitudes has not been fully developed, lacking a systematic discussion of relevant theories. This is the motivation and pain point for conducting the questionnaire survey in this article, which needs to be further explained.

 

There are only 91 participants, and their educational levels need to be supplemented. In fact, the sample size is not large, and it is only from one urban area, which limits the generalizability of the results. This needs to be supplemented in the discussion section.

 

Statistical methods: Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and hierarchical multiple regression analysis can effectively reveal the relationships and influencing factors among variables. Although multiple statistical methods were used, residents' attitudes may be influenced by multiple complex factors, and a single model may not fully capture the interactions among these factors.

 

Results: The results section mentions that attitudes are not only rational but also influenced by social perception and emotions, but the specific analysis and discussion of these factors are weak, and it fails to deeply explore how they affect residents' attitudes towards policies.

 

The study mentions that residents tend to focus on immediate benefits when facing political decisions and ignore future environmental impacts, but the discussion of this phenomenon is not deep enough and fails to fully explain the underlying psychological mechanisms.

 

Discussion: Regarding the relationship between scientific knowledge and attitudes, although an opposing view (utilitarianism and ecologism) is mentioned, there is not enough empirical data to support this argument, making the evidence seem weak.

 

Although some public awareness-raising activities are mentioned, their potential impact on residents' attitudes is not discussed in detail, and there is a lack of a comprehensive assessment of the policy implementation effect. Therefore, the discussion section can be enhanced by adding more empirical data and in-depth analysis to increase its persuasiveness and logicality.

 

Since the study was conducted in a specific social and cultural context, the results may not be applicable to different cultural or social environments. The study emphasizes the relationship between residents and political decisions but fails to deeply explore other social factors that may influence residents' attitudes, which may lead to an incomplete understanding of the formation of residents' attitudes. Further discussion is needed.

 

How does residents' scientific knowledge about the positive and negative impacts of street lighting affect their attitudes towards the policy of extending the time for turning off the lights? Detailed discussion is needed.

 

References: References 2, 39, 41, 42, and 51 are not formatted correctly. Please check carefully.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally clear and understandable but contains occasional language issues that may hinder the reading experience. The language is mostly academic, but some sections could be improved by using more precise terminology or adopting a more formal tone.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors' careful revision and line-by-line responses, I still have a few questions.

The conclusions in the abstract are still obvious. Adding only statistical results does not highlight the innovative nature of this study. It is still necessary to refine the new methods and conclusions of this study and highlight the differences from previous studies.

The hypothesis at the end of the introduction is usually one, not three. The discussion needs to echo the hypotheses in the exposition.

Hopefully, follow-up studies accommodate larger sample sizes and populations in different regions for broader assessments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language level is good. The thesis is well structured, clear, and the terminology is expressed accurately.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf