| Title |
The Value of Darkness: A Moral Framework for Urban Nighttime Lighting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9924-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Taylor Stone |
| Abstract |
The adverse effects of artificial nighttime lighting, known as light pollution, are emerging as an important environmental issue. To address these effects, current scientific research focuses mainly on identifying what is bad or undesirable about certain types and uses of lighting at night. This paper adopts a value-sensitive approach, focusing instead on what is good about darkness at night. In doing so, it offers a first comprehensive analysis of the environmental value of darkness at night from within applied ethics. A design for values orientation is utilized to conceptualize, define, and categorize the ways in which value is derived from darkness. Nine values are identified and categorized via their type of good, temporal outlook, and spatial characteristics. Furthermore, these nine values are translated into prima facie moral obligations that should be incorporated into future design choices, policy-making, and innovations to nighttime lighting. Thus, the value of darkness is analyzed with the practical goal of informing future decision-making about urban nighttime lighting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 35% |
| Canada | 2 | 12% |
| Japan | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 65% |
| Scientists | 5 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 7 | 9% |
| Engineering | 6 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 27% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,880,098
of 24,626,543 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#226
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,622
of 321,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,626,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.