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

Stéphanie Bordel, Kévin Nadarajah, Sylvain Bouquet, Samuel Busson, Maud Rebibou, Alain Somat

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Stéphanie Bordel, Kévin Nadarajah, Sylvain Bouquet, Samuel Busson, Maud Rebibou, et al. When Night Falls: An Exploratory Study of Residents' Perceptions of Policy Measures Regarding Extinction of Public Lighting in the 'Heart of the Night'. Sustainability, 2025, Energy Sustainability, 17 (6), pp.2534. 10.3390/su17062534. hal-04989960

HAL Id: hal-04989960

https://hal.science/hal-04989960v1

Submitted on 13 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

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

Stéphanie Bordel <fnref n="1" />,*,† ID, Kévin Nadarajah <fnref n="1" />,† ID, Sylvain Bouquet <fnref n="2" />, Samuel Busson <fnref n="2" /> ID, Maud Rebibou <fnref n="3" /> and Alain Somat <fnref n="4" /> ID

**Abstract:** Rising energy costs and a desire for sustainability have led municipalities to implement measures such as reducing artificial public lighting at night (ALAN). However, under pressure from residents, some municipalities are being forced to reverse their decision. Although important, the social relationship of individuals to public lighting and its impact on decisions to reduce or modify is still little considered. This study examines how residents of a municipality in southern France perceive a policy of reducing artificial night lighting from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. A survey of 91 participants was used to assess their understanding of the positive (safety, nightlife...) and negative (effects on biodiversity, health...) impacts of ALAN, their attitudes towards the measure, and their opinions regarding its extension. The results indicate that participants who recognise the negative impacts of ALAN are more inclined to support its reduction (r = 0.56, *p* < 0.001; *β* = 0.44, t = 3.12, *p* = 0.003), while those who appreciate its positive impacts are more reluctant to accept the measure (r = -0.57, *p* < 0.001; *β* = -0.70, t = -5.30, *p* < 0.001). Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that specific attitudes towards these lighting-off measures were the main predictor of support for the policy (*β* = 0.60, *t* = 6.70, *p* < 0.001) than general beliefs about the impacts of lighting. These results suggest that implementing such policies requires balancing ecological considerations with social expectations and building trust between local authorities and residents to improve public acceptance of lighting strategies. This study contributes to the still scarce research on the positioning of individuals in real projects to reduce or even switch off lighting and demonstrates the value of studying the relationship between individuals and policies to reduce public lighting.

**Keywords:** artificial light at night (ALAN); light pollution; public lighting; acceptance; policy measure; citizens perceptions

<footnote n="1">¹ Équipe de Recherche Psychologie Appliquée (PsyCAP), Centre d'Études et d'Expertise sur les Risques, l'Environnement, la Mobilité et l'Aménagement (Cerema), 22000 Saint-Brieuc, France; kevin.nadarajah@cerema.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Direction Territoriale Méditerranée, Centre d'Études et d'Expertise sur les Risques, l'Environnement, la Mobilité et l'Aménagement (Cerema), 13290 Aix-en-Provence, France; sylvain.bouquet@cerema.fr (S.B.); samuel.busson@cerema.fr (S.B.)</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ France Nature Environnement Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, 13007 Marseille, France; m.rebibouoxy@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Laboratoire de Psychologie: Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C), Université Rennes 2, 35000 Rennes, France; alain.somat@univ-rennes2.fr</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: stephanie.bordel@cerema.fr</footnote>

<footnote>† These authors contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) highlights that anthropogenic activities are a major cause of climate change, with global temperatures rising by 1.1 °C since the pre-industrial era and likely to reach 1.5 °C by the early 2030s [1]. Among these activities, unsustainable energy use is a determining factor, with the energy sector alone responsible for 34% (20 GtCO₂-eq) of global GHG emissions in 2019 [1]. The growing problem of energy consumption requires our societies to adopt more sustainable consumption patterns that meet "the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" [2] (p. 16). However, to achieve this sustainable energy, it seems necessary to adapt sustainability strategies to local conditions in order to meet the specific economic and environmental needs of each different region, with particular emphasis on the affordability of energy [3].

In France, the issue of energy affordability arose precisely with the rise in energy prices, which had an impact on local authorities. According to the Mayors' Association of France (https://www.amf.asso.fr/documents-face-inflation-les-maires-ont-besoin-dequite-marges-manoeuvre-plaide-david-lisnard/41262, accessed on 10 December 2024) (AMF), energy costs have risen by between 30% and 300%. In 2020, in response to this problem, the French government launched the National Low-Carbon Strategy, aimed at drastically reducing energy consumption in all sectors, with a target of a reduction of more than 40% compared with 2015. Faced with the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine two years later, the government also introduced an energy sobriety plan (https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/dp-plan-sobriete.pdf, accessed on 10 December 2024), including concrete measures to limit energy consumption. One of the key solutions proposed to local authorities is reducing, modifying, and/or turning off street lighting. According to Saad et al. [4], measures aimed at rationalising public lighting (e.g., new types of light, increasing the uniformity of light, etc.) would enable energy savings on public lighting of the order of 30 to 50%. In the case of a medium-sized town with a population of 200,000 to 400,000, energy savings on public lighting could reach 8 to 23 MWh per year (i.e., the output of a small or medium-sized electricity power plant). In March 2023, a survey carried out by the AMF (https://www.amf.asso.fr/documents-efficacite-energetique-les-maires-plebiscitent-controle-la-temperature-eclairage-public/41744, accessed on 10 December 2024) showed that 89% of respondents undertook measures on outdoor public lighting. Measures like reducing street lighting at night have proven effective, with cities like Nice (https://www.interregeurope.eu/find-policy-solutions/stories/turn-the-lights-off-mitigating-the-impact-of-artificial-light, accessed on 10 December 2024) saving over 1.5 million kWh annually, equivalent to €250,000.

In addition to saving energy, reducing artificial lighting also has beneficial effects on human health, biodiversity, and astronomy, even more so since artificial light at night (ALAN) that is too strong or misdirected can be detrimental to these aspects. Therefore, researchers talk about light pollution, which affects at least 80% of the world's population and over 99% of Europeans [5]. In the human health area, the threats from light pollution have increased significantly in the past decades [6]. Studies show a link between light pollution and sleep disorders [7-9] and numerous diseases: obesity [10,11], mental disorders [12], and cancers [13,14]. ALAN also has a negative impact on biodiversity [15], for a review. A growing body of literature shows that ALAN is a serious threat to all levels of biodiversity, from genes to ecosystems to individuals, populations, and communities [16]. Finally, light pollution affects astronomical observations and reduces the visibility of the night sky (stars, galaxies, or other astronomical objects) [17,18].
ALAN is an urgent issue of sustainable development [19], particularly for the impact of light on the environment [20,21], health [22], or energy savings [23]. Thus, in the literature, research has mainly focused on scientific or technical aspects without really addressing the social dimension. Yet people's relationship with street lighting plays an important social role, fostering individual and social activities in the way they perceive and use urban space. Street lighting has been used to increase the time spent on economic and recreational activities [24,25], cycling [26], and walking [27]. Indeed, street lighting helps promote a better perception of safety [28]. For example, street lighting contributes to more efficient travel by improving the feeling of safety and reducing the perception of crime, two major obstacles to mobility [29]. Although important, the social relationship of individuals to public lighting and its impact on decisions to reduce, modify, or extinguish lighting is still little considered [30]. Indeed, some studies have shown that while a majority of citizens support lighting control, particularly for commercial activities [31], there are notable differences in terms of acceptability within the population. As an example, it has been shown that the youngest individuals are the least accepting of extinction measures compared with the oldest members of the population [32]. One study showed that the majority of a city's residents accept lighting reductions for environmental reasons, while a minority oppose them because of safety concerns [33]. In their study, Boosma and Steg showed that providing information about the environmental benefits of reducing street lighting increases its acceptability, particularly among people whose priorities focus on the protection and well-being of nature and the environment [34]. Rea et al. have shown that acceptability depends as much on the intensity and perceived quality of the light as on its technical characteristics [35]. Meneses et al., for their part, demonstrated in Portugal that moderate reductions in lighting are generally well accepted, whereas excessive reductions raise concerns about safety [36]. These concerns of civil society stakeholders seem to be important in France. Indeed, recent examples show that switching off the lights in the middle of the night has provoked reactions from local residents. In Toulouse in 2022, for example, a pedestrians' association (https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/occitanie/haute-garonne/toulouse/extinction-des-lumieres-la-nuit-a-toulouse-une-association-craint-une-montee-de-l-insecurite-2645092.html, accessed on 11 December 2024) ("60 millions de piétons 31") opposed the switch-off. In December 2024, La Gazette des communes, a specialist magazine for elected representatives and administrators, reported that many local authorities were switching their lighting back on to combat feelings of insecurity (https://www.lagazettedescommunes.com/958746/face-au-sentiment-dinsecurite-leclairage-public-nocturne-reprend-du-service/, accessed on 11 December 2024). Finally, the 'change.org' platform offers a number of petitions calling for the lights to be switched back on, including those from the residents of Lunéville and Bordeaux. Although the acceptability of measures aimed at reducing public lighting seems to be important, studies looking at the relationship between stakeholders and lighting to support the implementation of measures are still rare for Beaudet et al. [33]. Yet, these authors have demonstrated the value of this type of approach in supporting the design and the implementation of public policies related to lighting, not least because the implementation of these choices is mainly left to civil society stakeholders [37].

Current Research

The global rise in energy costs, exacerbated by Russia's war on Ukraine, has had profound consequences for local communities, causing, for example, crude oil prices to rise by more than 50% between 1 October 2021 and 25 August 2022 [38,39], creating worldwide economic tensions. In the European Union, where energy prices have already begun to rise significantly since 2021, local authorities are exploring new measures to reduce energy consumption. One such measure was implemented in Ordon, a commune in southern
France, located in the "Parc Naturel Régional des Alpilles" in the "Sud-Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur" region. The rural context, combined with its belonging to a natural area, means that it is particularly exposed to the problems of light pollution, with the preservation of the night sky and biodiversity at stake, particularly for bats. So, ALAN was totally extinguished between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. The decision to switch off the lights provided an opportunity to carry out a survey of residents' opinions regarding scientific knowledge of the impact of ALAN and their attitudes to lighting and switching off. Research was carried out to better understand how this decision was perceived by the public, with two objectives: (1) to assess the public's opinion on the knowledge concerning the negative and positive impacts of ALAN as described by lighting specialists; the attitude towards lighting in their municipality, the attitude towards the switch-off measure and their opinions regarding the political measure to extend lighting extinction, and (2) to determine the impact of citizens' opinion on scientific knowledge concerning the negative and positive impact of lighting, the attitude towards lighting in their municipality, the attitude towards the switch-off measure and their opinions regarding the political measure to extend lighting extinction. In this study, three main hypotheses were then tested:

**Hypothesis 1.** Adherence to scientific knowledge on the positive impacts of street lighting should be associated with a negative attitude towards the measure to extend the lighting-off period. Conversely, adherence to scientific knowledge on the negative impacts of street lighting should be associated with a more positive attitude towards the measure to extend the lighting-off period.

**Hypothesis 2.** Citizens' attitudes towards public lighting in their local authority should influence their perception of the extension of the switch-off measure. A positive attitude towards public lighting could limit the support for the measure. On the other hand, a negative attitude towards public lighting is likely to increase the support for the extended switch-off measure.

**Hypothesis 3.** A positive attitude towards switching off street lighting should be directly linked to a positive evaluation of the municipality's measure to extend street lighting.

## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Participants and Procedure

91 participants answered the survey ($M = 44.3, SD = 17, range = 18-74, 52.7% female) after several weeks of artificial public lighting at night extinction (the decision was implemented in June 2022). The majority of respondents were local residents (81.3%), while the remainder were people who worked in the commune (one person did not answer this question). The study was carried out in partnership with the territorial services of the municipality, which distributed the questionnaire via the local bulletin, local partners, and website during the first quarter of 2023. Participants could complete the questionnaire on paper and drop it off at the city hall or answer it online by clicking on a link or QR code (see Supplementary Material). The Internet survey was on the Limesurvey® platform (V. 3.28). This study is defined as non-interventional research and it complies with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/, accessed on 12 December 2024). Thus, it was specified that the data would be processed by the researcher responsible for the research and that the municipality would only have access to the results. After reading the information notice and completing the consent form, the participants could answer the survey, which consisted of four sections. They were first invited to give their general opinion on scientific knowledge of the impact of street lighting. Secondly, the participants were asked about current lighting conditions in their city. In the third section, they were asked about lighting extinction. Finally, people were
informed about the ALAN extinction measures implemented in the city and their opinions on extinction were then collected.

## 2.2. Measures

### 2.2.1. General Opinion on Scientific Knowledge of the Impact of Street Lighting

Eight items have been used to assess general opinion on scientific knowledge of the impact of street lighting. These items were based on both the positive and negative impacts of ALAN as evidenced by scientists and summarised, e.g., in the “Planning, urbanism, biodiversity, lighting” sheets published by Cerema (https://www.cerema.fr/fr/centre-ressources/boutique/aube-amenagement-urbanisme-biodiversite-eclairage, accessed on 15 November 2022). These documents are destined to technicians and local politicians. Four positive items highlighted the social and functional role of ALAN in terms of safety, road safety, nightlife, and the enhancement of architectural heritage (e.g., “Public lighting contributes to road safety”). Four others concerned the negative impact of ALAN on biodiversity, health, high costs and the quality of the night sky (e.g., “Street lighting threatens flora and fauna”). In order to assess the general opinion on this scientific knowledge of the impact of street lighting, the participants were asked to give their degree of agreement with knowledge on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree) (Appendix A). Two scores of general opinion on scientific knowledge were calculated: one on negative impacts and the other on positive impacts. For reliability, alpha de Cronbach was computed. Good reliability was found for positive impacts (Cronbach's alpha for positive impacts = 0.81) and acceptable reliability (according to Cortina [40], an alpha below 0.70 is acceptable with a small number of items) for negative impacts (Cronbach's alpha for negative impacts = 0.65).

### 2.2.2. Attitude Towards Street Lighting in the Municipality

Attitude is defined as an evaluative judgement about a target such as an object, person, group or abstract idea [41]. Thus, citizens' attitudes towards their municipality's "public lighting" were measured using 7 items: essential, excessive, comfortable, unnecessary, annoying, appropriate, and insufficient (e.g., "Street lighting is essential"). Respondents were asked to position themselves on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 6 ("strongly agree").

### 2.2.3. Attitude on Lighting Extinction

Individuals' attitude towards street lighting extinction were measured using 5 items: useless/useful, uncomfortable/comfortable, dangerous/secure, unacceptable/acceptable and unfavourable/favourable (e.g., "Extinction is useless/useful"). Respondents were asked to position themselves on a 6-point semantic differential scale [41], which opposed the pairs of adjectives.

### 2.2.4. Opinion on the Policy Measure to Extend Lighting Extinction

After the respondents had been informed of the political decision to switch off at night, their opinion towards this policy decision was measured using one single item: reduced/extended (i.e., “Do you think this extinction should be reduced/extended?”). Also, as before, respondents were invited to position themselves on a 6-point semantic differential scale.

## 2.3. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using JAMOVI® (version 2.3.28). In this study, three analyses were conducted: (1) Descriptive statistics, (2) Pearson correlations to determine the associations between the variables measured, and (3) a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to
identify the predictive factors associated with the opinion on the policy measure to extend
lighting extinction.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Two scores of general opinion on scientific knowledge of the impact of street lighting were calculated: one on negative impacts, the other on positive impacts. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics (i.e., total number of cases, mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values) for these two variables, measures of attitude towards public lighting, towards switching off lighting, and opinion of the political measure to extend lighting extinction. The participants expressed overall agreement with the general opinion on scientific knowledge about the positive impacts of street lighting while expressing a slightly lower level of agreement with the negative impacts of street lighting (respectively *M* = 4.03, *SD* = 1.33, and *M* = 3.83, *SD* = 1.22). The expression of the participants was neutral but relatively homogeneous regarding public lighting in their municipality (*M* = 3.00, *SD* = 0.44). On the other hand, their attitudes are moderate but not uniform with regard to lighting extinction (*M* = 4.21, *SD* = 1.57), and they are similarly positioned with regard to the policy measure of extending the extinction, although this opinion appears to be more heterogeneous (*M* = 4.18, *SD* = 1.82).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Descriptive statistics: Total number of cases, Mean, Standard deviation, Minimum and Maximum.</caption><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>n</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>Min</td><td>Max</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Opinion Scientific Knowledge Pos.</td><td>89</td><td>4.03</td><td>1.33</td><td>1.00</td><td>6.00</td></tr><tr><td>2. Opinion Scientific Knowledge Neg.</td><td>87</td><td>3.83</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.00</td><td>6.00</td></tr><tr><td>3. Attitude towards street lighting</td><td>81</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.44</td><td>2.00</td><td>4.14</td></tr><tr><td>4. Attitude on lighting extinction</td><td>77</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.57</td><td>1.00</td><td>6.00</td></tr><tr><td>5. Opinion on the policy measure to extend lighting extinction</td><td>88</td><td>4.18</td><td>1.82</td><td>1.00</td><td>6.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.2. Correlations

There are negative correlations between general opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting and general opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact (*r* = −0.46, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.61, −0.27]). These two variables are not correlated with attitude towards street lighting in the municipality (*r* = 0.14, *p* = 0.23, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.35]; *r* = 0.13, *p* = 0.26, 95% CI [−0.10, 0.34], respectively). General opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting is positively correlated with attitudes on lighting extinction (*r* = 0.56, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [0.38, 0.69] and with the policy measure of opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction (*r* = 0.63, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [0.48, 0.74]). On the contrary, general opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact is negatively correlated with attitudes on lighting extinction (*r* = 0.57, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.70, −0.39] and with opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction (*r* = −0.52, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.66, −0.35]). There is also a correlation between attitudes on lighting extinction and opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction (*r* = 0.80, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [0.71, 0.87] (see Table 2). Correlations show a contrasting pattern between perceptions of the positive and negative impacts of public lighting, with these perceptions having a different influence on attitudes towards switching off lighting and associated policy measures.
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Correlations for Study Variables.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Opinion Scientific Knowledge Pos.<br>r<br>p<br>95% IC</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Opinion Scientific Knowledge Neg.<br>r<br>p<br>95% IC</td><td>-0.46<br>&lt;0.001<br>[-0.61, -0.27]</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Attitude towards street lighting<br>r<br>p<br>95% IC</td><td>0.13<br>0.26<br>[-0.10, 0.34]</td><td>0.14<br>0.23<br>[-0.09, 0.35]</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Attitude on lighting extinction<br>r<br>p<br>95% IC</td><td>-0.57<br>&lt;0.001<br>[-0.70, -0.39]</td><td>0.56<br>&lt;0.001<br>[0.38, 0.69]</td><td>0.13<br>0.26<br>[-0.10, 0.35]</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Opinion on the policy measure to extend lighting extinction<br>r<br>p<br>95% IC</td><td>-0.52<br>&lt;0.001<br>[-0.66, -0.35]</td><td>0.63<br>&lt;0.001<br>[0.48, 0.74]</td><td>0.16<br>0.15<br>[-0.06, 0.37]</td><td>0.8<br>&lt;0.001<br>[0.71, 0.87]</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.3. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis

The results of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis (Table 3) revealed that general opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting negatively affects opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction ($\beta = -0.70, t = -5.30, p < 0.001$) and that general opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting positively affects opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction ($\beta = 0.44, t = 3.12, p = 0.003$) (Hypothesis 1 is validated). The results also show that attitude towards street lighting ($\beta = 0.67, t = 2.07, p = 0.04$) and attitude on lighting extinction ($\beta = 0.60, t = 6.70, p < 0.001$) positively affect opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction (Hypothesis 2 is therefore partially validated: attitude towards public lighting influences support for the switch-off measure, although its impact is weaker than expected). Finally, we tested a model incorporating the variables introduced in steps 2 and 3. The relationship remained significant for the opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting ($\beta = -0.46, 95\%$ CI $[-0.69, -0.24]$, $t = -4.13, p < 0.001$) and for attitude on lighting extinction ($\beta = 0.60, 95\%$ CI $[0.42, 0.78]$, $t = 6.70, p < 0.001$; $\Delta R^2 = 0.17, p < 0.001$) (Hypothesis 1 is questioned: the expected links were previously found, but the links may vary due to other factors that may be involved; Hypothesis 3 is validated) (see Figure 1). Regression analyses show once again that opinions on the scientific impacts of public lighting and attitudes towards switching off play an important role in the perception of ALAN's switching-off policies, highlighting a complex dynamic between beliefs and attitudes.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis for opinions and attitudes on the policy measure to extend lighting extinction.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>95% CI</th><th>t</th><th>p</th><th>R<sup>2</sup></th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Step 1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting</td><td>-0.70</td><td>[-0.965, -0.437]</td><td>-5.3</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting</td><td>0.44</td><td>[0.160, 0.726]</td><td>3.12</td><td>0.003</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Step 2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting</td><td>-0.76</td><td>[-1.03, -0.50]</td><td>-5.75</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting</td><td>0.37</td><td>[0.080, 0.65]</td><td>2.55</td><td>0.013</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Attitude towards street lighting</td><td>0.67</td><td>[0.024, 1.31]</td><td>2.07</td><td>0.04</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>95% CI</th><th>t</th><th>p</th><th>R<sup>2</sup></th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Step 3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting</td><td>-0.46</td><td>[-0.690, -0.241]</td><td>-4.13</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.17</td></tr><tr><td>Opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting</td><td>0.13</td><td>[-0.102, 0.365]</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.27</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Attitude towards street lighting</td><td>0.40</td><td>[-0.102, 0.912]</td><td>1.59</td><td>0.12</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Attitude on lighting extinction</td><td>0.60</td><td>[0.423, 0.783]</td><td>6.70</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis for opinions and attitudes on the policy measure to extend lighting extinction measure at each stage of analysis. Blue arrows represent positive relationships. Red arrows represent negative relationships. Black dashed arrows represent non-significant relationships. \* *p* < 0.05. \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.</figcaption></figure>

## 4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine citizens' opinions and attitudes in a municipality in the south of France towards a night-time lighting extinction measure and then to assess the impact of these determinants on this decision.

First, opinions and attitudes are not polarized in one direction or another, as they are generally around the mean. The issue of public lighting seems not to be a major question for respondents. This type of observation had already been made in Mosser's dissertation [42] and in the study by Chelkoff and Bardyn [43], who deplored the lack of recognition of lighting incidence by city residents and the low mobilising power of the subject. For Chelkoff and Bardyn, this is explained by the fact that residents often perceive street lighting subconsciously. A recent report by Borgna [44] indicates that the subject has little mobilising power, but that reactions can occur when lighting is modified or when the lighting is remarkable (e.g., aesthetic effort, particularly high intensity, breakdown, etc.).
Secondly, there is an opposition between general opinion on scientific knowledge. Correlations analysis revealed a significant negative association between adherence to scientific knowledge about positive impacts (e.g., contribution to safety, enhancement of architectural heritage) and adherence to scientific knowledge about negative impacts (e.g., threats to flora and fauna, health risks). Thus, the greater the number of persons adhering to scientific knowledge about positive impacts, the lower their adhesion to scientific knowledge about negative impacts, and conversely. These results are consistent with hypothesis 1, which postulated that adherence to scientific knowledge about the positive impacts of public lighting is associated with a negative attitude towards the measure to extend the period during which lighting is switched off, while adherence to scientific knowledge about the negative impacts of public lighting should be associated with a more positive attitude towards the measure to extend the period during which lighting is switched off. This suggests that individuals are influenced by two visions of public lighting, which reflects the historical separation in research on this subject. Indeed, Challéat et al. [45] distinguish between two types of studies: the first and oldest, "urban lighting studies", and the second and most recent, "light pollution studies". Urban lighting studies focus on the benefits of lighting from a utilitarian point of view (i.e., the safety of people, property and mobility, health, and architectural and urban aesthetics) while ignoring environmental aspects. This vision, inherited in particular from history, has long emphasized the benefits of lighting, from protection against wild animals in prehistoric times and the Middle Ages to the modern concern for urban safety [46]. It also served as a political tool in the 20th and 21st centuries, aimed at revitalizing cities [47] and contributing to economic development [24,25]. This socially ingrained positive perception of lighting may have been disseminated through schools, consulting firms, and media that contribute to the construction and dissemination of social norms (e.g., "it's dangerous for women to go out at night"), ultimately shaping a favorable opinion of the benefits of lighting among some participants in this study. Conversely, studies on light pollution are more recent and stem from work highlighting the negative effects of ALAN. These studies were carried out by astronomers, ecologists, biologists, or medical researchers. Their results have been disseminated through awareness campaigns such as the Globe at Night Program, an international citizen science initiative that raises awareness of the impact of light pollution, and in France, the Jour de la Nuit. By providing knowledge, awareness campaigns help to build and even change public attitudes [48–50], including the ones towards the negative effects of ALAN. Thus, the opposition observed in this study suggests that individuals do not integrate the two perspectives simultaneously but rather align with one at the expense of the other. This "selective" adherence could stem from the tendency of individuals to favor information consistent with their prior beliefs [51] and/or from the selective exposure mechanism, which explains that, in social and institutional contexts that favor exposure to one point of view over another, individuals are more likely to encounter and accept information that reinforces their own point of view [52,53]. In addition, we observed an inverse relationship between scientific knowledge and attitude toward lighting extinction and opinion towards extending lighting extinction. Respondents who agreed with scientific knowledge of positive impacts were less in favour of extinction and prolonging extinction. It is consistent that people who perceive the positive benefits of lighting are not in favour of switching it off. The opposite result was observed for knowledge of negative impacts. In the same way, it is thus consistent that people who perceive the negative impacts of lighting are in favour of his extinction. These results confirm Hypothesis 1. These results do agree with the model postulated by Albarracin et al. [54]: beliefs—in this case, about scientific knowledge of the impact of public lighting—influence attitudes towards lighting extinction and its extension. This finding meets the ones of other studies that show the
effects of scientific knowledge, for example, in raising awareness of environmental impacts and thus transforming attitudes into behaviors [55,56].

Third, when we observe hierarchical multiple regression analysis for opinions and attitudes on the policy measure to extend lighting extinction, it appears that hypothesis 2 is partially validated: general opinion on scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting has a negative influence on the opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction. In other words, the more people support the idea that lighting has a positive impact on safety, road security, nightlife and architectural heritage enhancement, the less they are in favour of extending the lighting extinction. This interpretation is consistent with the common-sense idea that street lighting promotes safety. However, the literature presents a more nuanced picture of the issue. While some studies indicate that street lighting significantly reduces crime [57], others argue that there is insufficient evidence of the impact of lighting on reducing crime or road accidents [58]. These studies highlight the complex distinction between the real effects of lighting on crime rates and the perceived sense of safety. Thus, while lighting may increase the subjective feeling of safety, these effects on crime are not certain [58,59]. This nuance is important since, in this study, people's attitudes towards street lighting and switching measures appear to be influenced by their feeling of safety, which in turn derives from their interpretation of the available scientific evidence. In contrast, general opinion on scientific knowledge of the negative impact of street lighting has a positive influence on the opinion towards prolongation of lighting extinction. The more people support the idea that lighting has a negative impact on biodiversity, health, high cost, and quality of the starry sky, the more they are inclined to extend the lighting extinction. One's opinion on scientific knowledge directly influences one's attitude towards the prolongation of lighting extinction. These findings are consistent with Corner et al. [60], who highlight the central role of prior beliefs in influencing the selective interpretation of scientific information, leading to the formation of polarized attitudes towards environmental policies. The results also indicate that attitude towards street lighting and attitude towards lighting extinction positively affect opinion on extending lighting extinction. At first glance, these findings may appear contradictory. Indeed, while a favourable attitude towards lighting extinction is consistent with support for extending it, a favourable attitude towards the municipality's street lighting might seem at odds with such support. However, if we interpret both attitudes—towards public lighting and lighting extinction—as attitudes towards the municipality's political decisions, the apparent contradiction resolves itself. It becomes logical, according to dissonance theory [61], that individuals who are generally supportive of the municipality's policies would also favour extending one of these decisions.

Finally, when all variables are considered in a combined model, some relationships we found remain significant, while others disappear. This result challenges hypothesis 1 since, in the final model, the measures linked to opinions about scientific knowledge show contrasting effects on opinion about the extinction measure. Thus, the initial relationships between opinions on scientific knowledge of positive impacts and attitude towards prolonged lighting-off and between attitude towards lighting-off and attitude towards prolonged lighting-off remain significant, although the effect of opinions on scientific knowledge of positive impacts is slightly reduced compared to the previous model. In fact, while this knowledge is important, its impact is modulated by other factors, such as the general attitude towards lighting in the municipality and social concerns (i.e., attitude towards switching off). For Chaiken [62,63], attitudes result from differentiated processing of information: systematic, analytical processing based more on knowledge and heuristic, more intuitive processing based more on emotions and social perceptions. In this exploratory study, the attitude towards extinction reflects this duality. The attitude
towards extinction was measured using several items that aim to measure both cognitive
elements (e.g., the usefulness of the extinction policy), which reflect a systematic mode
of processing, and emotional or affective dimensions (e.g., comfortability and perceived
dangerousness), whereas the perception of comfort or danger reflects more of an affective
heuristic mode of processing. While this approach provides an understanding of the way
in which the relationship with extinction policies can be elaborated on the basis of rational
and subjective elements, further studies could develop these aspects in order to improve
our understanding of the processes involved in the construction of this relationship. On
the other hand, the initial relationships between opinions on scientific knowledge of nega-
tive impacts and attitudes towards extending lighting-off, and between attitudes towards
public lighting and attitudes towards extending lighting-off, disappear. Therefore, it is as
if, when faced with a political decision, the majority of citizens prioritise information by
placing greater emphasis on immediate benefits (i.e., positive impact) to the detriment of
environmental concerns perceived as belonging to a distant and more abstract future (i.e.,
negative impact). This dynamic could be related to the theory of time perspective [64–66],
according to which individuals may place more importance on immediate outcomes to
the detriment of future consequences, in spite of their significance. This process could
explain why individuals with a positive opinion about the positive impact of lighting tend
to have a negative attitude towards the switch-off measure. Indeed, participants were able
to express resistance to the measures because they could be perceived as generating an
immediate inconvenience to daily activities (e.g., reduced visibility, feeling of insecurity,
etc.) despite the long-term ecological and economic benefits. Citizens’ attitudes to these
decisions could, therefore, be linked to a temporal perception, where the deferred gains,
although potentially major, struggle to counterbalance the constraints felt in the short
term, which can hamper daily activities. Finally, the relationship between attitudes toward
street lighting and opinions on the extension of the extinction measure disappears. This
contradictory result can be explained by the theory of attitudinal specificity [67,68]. This
theory explains that general attitudes (i.e., public lighting) have less influence on specific
decisions than targeted attitudes (i.e., attitudes toward extinction). This is why the most
influential variable in the model seems to be the attitude towards extinction, i.e., the specific
attitudinal variable towards the public decision to extend extinction. It is, therefore, the
relationship between the inhabitants and this public decision that seems to be decisive. The
third hypothesis is confirmed, which is that a positive attitude towards switching off street
lighting is directly linked to a positive evaluation of the measure taken by the municipality
to extend street lighting.

Although these results are interesting, they need to be put into perspective. In fact, as
the study was a field one, with time constraints on completing the questionnaire, we were
limited in the number of variables and items measuring certain dimensions. Thus, while
the dimensions mobilised in this article provide a better understanding of the relationship
between individuals and the extinction policies of their municipalities, they are insufficient
to properly cover certain factors (e.g., morals, norms, etc.) that may play an essential role
in the positioning of individuals with regard to environmental policies [69]. Similarly,
the study was confined to a single commune with a limited number of participants. It is
therefore difficult to generalise the results. However, it has the advantage over laboratory
studies in that it integrates into social and cultural contexts and preserves the complexity
of reality [70].
**5. Conclusions**

The findings of this study reveal that when all variables are considered, only the general opinion on the scientific knowledge of the positive impact of street lighting has an influence. Hence, if a partial lighting extinction is to be implemented, a holistic approach taking into account both functional and ecological aspects seems appropriate [45]: awareness of the negative effects of ALAN would not be enough to make the decision more acceptable. However, although our results revealed a contrasting effect of the negative effects of ALAN (e.g., light pollution) on public attitudes towards extinction, this does not mean that light pollution is not an important factor. Indeed, integrating specific measures to limit light pollution into broader policy frameworks could improve both environmental quality and public trust. Such integration would not only address ecological concerns but also encourage a more inclusive decision-making process, not least because residents are more likely to support policies that reflect their environmental priorities [71,72]. Moreover, the results of this study support this idea since the link between residents and political decisions appears to be decisive. Consequently, anything that can strengthen this link and increase trust will be beneficial, in line with the findings of Holum [73], who show that well-designed participation mechanisms and citizen engagement in decision-making can foster both trust and acceptability of policy changes.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17062534/s1, Survey.

**Author Contributions:** S.B. (Stéphanie Bordel): conceptualization, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. K.N.: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. S.B. (Sylvain Bouquet): validation, writing—review, and editing. S.B. (Samuel Busson): validation, writing—review, and editing. M.R.: validation, writing—review, and editing. A.S.: validation, writing—review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by "Sud-Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur" region (ATENA Project), France Nature Environnement and Centre d'Études et d'Expertise sur les Risques, l'Environnement, la Mobilité et l'Aménagement. This publication is also funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-22-CE22-0004-02).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** This study is defined as non-interventional research and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its subsequent amendments (2001), the ethical principles of the French Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2012), as well as the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and the American Psychological Association Code of Conduct (2017). Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to legal regulations in France (Loi Jardé).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Participants were informed of the purpose of the study in a cover letter and were assured that their data would remain confidential. Participants were required to give explicit consent to access the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data are openly available at https://osf.io/2amqx/ (accessed on 12 March 2025).

**Acknowledgments:** The authors thank the different partners in this study and their institutions for their precious help and support; the authors thank Mehdi Chahir (Cerema), Stéphanie Crevel (Cerema), Nathalie Chaudon (FNE) and Aurélien Nicolle-Romieu (FNE) particularly. The authors would like to thank Mario Marchetti for proofreading the English version and the reviewers for their comments, which have helped us to improve this article.
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

# Appendix A. General Opinion on Scientific Knowledge of the Impact of Street Lighting

1. Public lighting weighs heavily on local authorities' budgets

2. Public lighting contributes to road safety

3. Public lighting is a threat to flora and fauna

4. Public lighting helps to enhance architectural heritage

5. Public lighting poses a health risk to people

6. Public lighting contributes to the safety of people and property

7. Public lighting affects the quality of the starry sky

8. Public lighting contributes to the smooth running of night-time activities in public spaces

# References

1. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In *Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–34.

2. Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M. *Our Common Future*; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.

3. Halawa, E. Sustainable Energy: Concept and Definition in the Context of the Energy Transition—A Critical Review. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 1523. [CrossRef]

4. Saad, R.; Portnov, B.A.; Trop, T. Saving Energy While Maintaining the Feeling of Safety Associated with Urban Street Lighting. *Clean Technol. Env. Policy* **2021**, *23*, 251–269. [CrossRef]

5. The Lancet Regional Health—Europe. Shedding Light on Light Pollution. *Lancet Reg. Health Eur.* **2023**, *31*, 100710. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Davies, T.W.; Smyth, T. Why Artificial Light at Night Should Be a Focus for Global Change Research in the 21st Century. *Glob. Change Biol.* **2018**, *24*, 872–882. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7. Cao, M.; Xu, T.; Yin, D. Understanding Light Pollution: Recent Advances on Its Health Threats and Regulations. *J. Environ. Sci.* **2023**, *127*, 589–602. [CrossRef]

8. Nadybal, S.M.; Collins, T.W.; Grineski, S.E. Light Pollution Inequities in the Continental United States: A Distributive Environmental Justice Analysis. *Environ. Res.* **2020**, *189*, 109959. [CrossRef]

9. Xu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Tao, F.; Sun, Y. Association between Exposure to Light at Night (LAN) and Sleep Problems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2023**, *857*, 159303. [CrossRef]

10. Esaki, Y.; Obayashi, K.; Saeki, K.; Fujita, K.; Iwata, N.; Kitajima, T. Bedroom Light Exposure at Night and Obesity in Individuals with Bipolar Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the APPLE Cohort. *Physiol. Behav.* **2021**, *230*, 113281. [CrossRef]

11. Guan, Q.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Cao, J.; Dong, Y.; Ren, F.; Chen, Y. Monochromatic Light Pollution Exacerbates High-Fat Diet-Induced Adipocytic Hypertrophy in Mice. *Cells* **2022**, *11*, 3808. [CrossRef]

12. Namgyal, D.; Chandan, K.; Sultan, A.; Aftab, M.; Ali, S.; Mehta, R.; El-Serehy, H.A.; Al-Misned, F.A.; Sarwat, M. Dim Light at Night Induced Neurodegeneration and Ameliorative Effect of Curcumin. *Cells* **2020**, *9*, 2093. [CrossRef]

13. Clarke, R.B.; Amini, H.; James, P.; von Euler-Chelpin, M.; Jørgensen, J.T.; Mehta, A.; Cole-Hunter, T.; Westendorp, R.; Mortensen, L.H.; Loft, S.; et al. Outdoor Light at Night and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Danish Nurse Cohort. *Environ. Res.* **2021**, *194*, 110631. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Urbano, T.; Vinceti, M.; Wise, L.A.; Filippini, T. Light at Night and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis. *Int. J. Health Geogr.* **2021**, *20*, 44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. Longcore, T. Pollution, Light. In *Encyclopedia of Biodiversity*, 3rd ed.; Scheiner, S.M., Ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2024; pp. 369–379, ISBN 978-0-323-98434-8.

16. Hölker, F.; Bolliger, J.; Davies, T.W.; Giavi, S.; Jechow, A.; Kalinkat, G.; Longcore, T.; Spoelstra, K.; Tidau, S.; Visser, M.E.; et al. 11 Pressing Research Questions on How Light Pollution Affects Biodiversity. *Front. Ecol. Evol.* **2021**, *9*, 767177. [CrossRef]

17. Lawler, S.M.; Boley, A.C.; Rein, H. Visibility Predictions for Near-Future Satellite Megaconstellations: Latitudes near 50° Will Experience the Worst Light Pollution. *AJ* **2021**, *163*, 21. [CrossRef]

18. Riza, L.S.; Izzuddin, A.; Utama, J.A.; Samah, K.A.F.A.; Herdiwijaya, D.; Hidayat, T.; Anugraha, R.; Mumpuni, E.S. Data Analysis Techniques in Light Pollution: A Survey and Taxonomy. *New Astron. Rev.* **2022**, *95*, 101663. [CrossRef]

19. Tavares, P.; Ingi, D.; Araújo, L.; Pinho, P.; Bhusal, P. Reviewing the Role of Outdoor Lighting in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 12657. [CrossRef]
20. Zissis, G. Sustainable Lighting and Light Pollution: A Critical Issue for the Present Generation, a Challenge to the Future. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 4552. [CrossRef]

21. Rozman Cafuta, M. Sustainable City Lighting Impact and Evaluation Methodology of Lighting Quality from a User Perspective. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 3409. [CrossRef]

22. Liu, Y.; Yu, C.; Wang, K.; Kwan, M.-P.; Tse, L.A. Linking Artificial Light at Night with Human Health via a Multi-Component Framework: A Systematic Evidence Map. *Environments* **2023**, *10*, 39. [CrossRef]

23. Velásquez, C.; Espín, F.; Castro, M.Á.; Rodríguez, F. Energy Efficiency in Public Lighting Systems Friendly to the Environment and Protected Areas. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 5113. [CrossRef]

24. Chepesiuk, R. Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution. *Environ. Health Perspect.* **2009**, *117*, A20–A27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25. Kasseh, Y.; Touzani, A.; El Majaty, S. What Public Lighting Governance Model Should Be Deployed in Moroccan Cities for Sustainable and Efficient Energy Management? *Mater. Today Proc.* **2023**, *72*, 3244–3252. [CrossRef]

26. Vidal-Tortosa, E.; Lovelace, R. Road Lighting and Cycling: A Review of the Academic Literature and Policy Guidelines. *J. Cycl. Micromobility Res.* **2024**, *2*, 100008. [CrossRef]

27. Ferrer, S.; Ruiz, T. The Impact of the Built Environment on the Decision to Walk for Short Trips: Evidence from Two Spanish Cities. *Transp. Policy* **2018**, *67*, 111–120. [CrossRef]

28. Doleac, J.L.; Sanders, N.J. Under the Cover of Darkness: How Ambient Light Influences Criminal Activity. *Rev. Econ. Stat.* **2015**, *97*, 1093–1103. [CrossRef]

29. Ruiz-Padillo, A.; Oestreich, L.; Torres, T.B.; Rhoden, P.S.; Larranaga, A.M.; Cybis, H.B. Weighted Assessment of Barriers to Walking in Small Cities: A Brazilian Case. *Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.* **2022**, *109*, 103392. [CrossRef]

30. Challéat, S.; Lapostolle, D. Getting Night Lighting Right. Taking Account of Nocturnal Urban Uses for Better-Lit Cities. *Métropolitiques*. Available online: http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Prendre-en-compte-les-usages-pour-mieux-eclairer-la-nuit.html (accessed on 14 December 2017).

31. Silver, D.; Hickey, G. Managing Light Pollution through Dark Sky Areas: Learning from the World's First Dark Sky Preserve. *J. Environ. Plan. Manag.* **2020**, *63*, 1–19. [CrossRef]

32. Lyytimäki, J.; Rinne, J. Voices for the Darkness: Online Survey on Public Perceptions on Light Pollution as an Environmental Problem. *J. Integr. Environ. Sci.* **2013**, *10*, 127–139. [CrossRef]

33. Beaudet, C.; Tardieu, L.; David, M. Are Citizens Willing to Accept Changes in Public Lighting for Biodiversity Conservation? *Ecol. Econ.* **2022**, *200*, 107527. [CrossRef]

34. Boomsma, C.; Steg, L. The Effect of Information and Values on Acceptability of Reduced Street Lighting. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2014**, *39*, 22–31. [CrossRef]

35. Rea, M.S.; Bullough, J.D.; Akashi, Y. *Several Views of Metal Halide and High-Pressure Sodium Lighting for Outdoor Applications*; Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy, NY, USA, 2009; p. 12180.

36. Meneses, M.; Albuquerque, M.; Fonseca, A.A.; Carreira, P. Energy efficiency in street lighting—Citizens’ point of view. In Proceedings of the CIRED Workshop 2016, Helsinki, Finland, 14–15 June 2016; pp. 1–4.

37. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Seeling, S.; Seeger, M.K.; Ries, J.B. Light Pollution: A Review of the Scientific Literature. *Anthr. Rev.* **2023**, *10*, 367–392. [CrossRef]

38. Zhang, Q.; Yang, K.; Hu, Y.; Jiao, J.; Wang, S. Unveiling the Impact of Geopolitical Conflict on Oil Prices: A Case Study of the Russia-Ukraine War and Its Channels. *Energy Econ.* **2023**, *126*, 106956. [CrossRef]

39. Zhang, Q.; Hu, Y.; Jiao, J.; Wang, S. The Impact of Russia–Ukraine War on Crude Oil Prices: An EMC Framework. *Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.* **2024**, *11*, 1–12. [CrossRef]

40. Cortina, J.M. What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. *J. Appl. Psychol.* **1993**, *78*, 98–104. [CrossRef]

41. Albarracin, D.; Johnson, B.T. *The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles*, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018.

42. Mosser, S. Éclairage Urbain: Enjeux et Instruments d'action. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris, Paris, France, 2003.

43. Chelkoff, G.; Bardyn, J.L. *Une Approche Qualitative de l'éclairage Public*; Research Report; CRESSON: Grenoble, France, 1990.

44. Borgna, M.L. *L'éclairage Public. Nouvel Enjeu Démocratique de La Transition Écologique*? La Fabrique de la Cité: Paris, France, 2024.

45. Challéat, S.; Lapostolle, D.; Milian, J.; Bénos, R.; Barré, K.; Farrugia, N.; Renaud, M.; Maisonobe, M.; Morvan, S.; Ronzani, C.; et al. Construire et Travailler Un Objet de Recherche En Interdisciplinarité: L'exemple de l'environnement Nocturne à La Réunion. *Tracés. Rev. Sci. Hum.* **2022**, *22*, 14581. [CrossRef]

46. Reculin, S. "Le Règne de La Nuit Désormais va Finir". L'invention et La Diffusion de l'éclairage Public Dans Le Royaume de France (1697–1789). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Charles de Gaulle—Lille III, Villeneuve-d'Ascq, France, 2017.

47. Mallet, S.; Comelli, C. Politiques d'éclairage Public et Transformations Des Espaces Urbains: Une Approche Critique. *Cybergeo Rev. Eur. Géographie Eur. J. Geogr.* **2017**, 28796. [CrossRef]

48. Joule, R.V.; Girandola, F.; Bernard, F. How can people be induced to willingly change their behavior? The path from persuasive communication to binding communication. *Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass* **2007**, *1*, 493–505. [CrossRef]
49. Girandola, F.; Demarque, C.; Lo Monaco, G. *Psychologie Sociale*; Dunod: Paris, France, 2024.

50. Hamilton, K.; Johnson, B.T. Attitude and persuasive communication interventions. In *The Handbook of Behavior Change*; Hagger, M.S., Cameron, L.D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N., Lintunen, T., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 445–460.

51. Nickerson, R.S. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. *Rev. Gen. Psychol.* **1998**, *2*, 175–220. [CrossRef]

52. Stroud, N.J. Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure. *Polit. Behav.* **2008**, *30*, 341–366. [CrossRef]

53. Wagner, J.K. The effect of selective exposure on agenda diversity: An experimental analysis of high-choice media environments and issue consensus. *Front. Political Sci.* **2023**, *4*, 1022782. [CrossRef]

54. Albarracin, D.; Shavitt, S. Attitudes and Attitude Change. *Annu. Rev. Psychol.* **2018**, *69*, 299–327. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

55. Boudet, H.; Ardoin, N.; Flora, J.; Flora, J.; Armel, K.C.; Desai, M.; Robinson, T.N. Effects of a Behaviour Change Intervention for Girl Scouts on Child and Parent Energy-Saving Behaviours. *Nat. Energy* **2016**, *1*, 16091. [CrossRef]

56. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review. *Int. J. Psychol.* **2014**, *49*, 141–157. [CrossRef]

57. Welsh, B.C.; Farrington, D.P. Effects of Improved Street Lighting on Crime. *Campbell Syst. Rev.* **2008**, *4*, 1–51. [CrossRef]

58. Marchant, P.R. A Demonstration That the Claim That Brighter Lighting Reduces Crime Is Unfounded. *Br. J. Criminol.* **2004**, *44*, 441–447. [CrossRef]

59. Boyce, P.R.; Rea, M.S. Security Lighting: Effects of Illuminance and Light Source on the Capabilities of Guards and Intruders†. *Light. Res. Technol.* **1990**, *22*, 57–79. [CrossRef]

60. Corner, A.; Whitmarsh, L.; Xenias, D. Uncertainty, Scepticism and Attitudes towards Climate Change: Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarisation. *Clim. Change* **2012**, *114*, 463–478. [CrossRef]

61. Morvan, C.; O'Connor, A. *An Analysis of Leon Festinger's A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance*; Routledge: London, UK; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2017.

62. Chaiken, S.; Trope, Y. *Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology*; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.

63. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. *The Psychology of Attitudes*; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: San Diego, CA, USA, 1993.

64. Zimbardo, P.G.; Boyd, J.N. Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences Metric. *J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.* **1999**, *77*, 1271–1288. [CrossRef]

65. Joireman, J.; Shaffer, M.J.; Balliet, D.; Strathman, A. Promotion Orientation Explains Why Future-Oriented People Exercise and Eat Healthy: Evidence From the Two-Factor Consideration of Future Consequences-14 Scale. *Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.* **2012**, *38*, 1272–1287. [CrossRef]

66. Nadarajah, K.; David, J.-C.; Brun, L.; Bordel, S.; Moyon, L.; Le Foll, D.; Delouvée, S.; Somat, A. "We Are Running Out of Time": Temporal Orientation and Information Seeking as Explanatory Factors of Climate Anxiety among Young People. *Psych* **2022**, *4*, 560–573. [CrossRef]

67. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research. *Psychol. Bull.* **1977**, *84*, 888–918. [CrossRef]

68. Dai, W.; Albarracín, D. It's Time to Do More Research on the Attitude-Behavior Relation: A Commentary on Implicit Attitude Measures. *WIREs Cogn. Sci.* **2022**, *13*, e1602. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

69. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2009**, *29*, 309–317. [CrossRef]

70. Rozin, P. Social Psychology and Science: Some Lessons From Solomon Asch. *Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.* **2001**, *5*, 2–14. [CrossRef]

71. Stechemesser, A.; Koch, N.; Mark, E.; Dilger, E.; Klösel, P.; Menicacci, L.; Nachtigall, D.; Pretis, F.; Ritter, N.; Schwarz, M.; et al. Climate Policies That Achieved Major Emission Reductions: Global Evidence from Two Decades. *Science* **2024**, *385*, 884–892. [CrossRef]

72. Kaiser, F.G.; Gerdes, R.; König, F. Supporting and Expressing Support for Environmental Policies. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2023**, *87*, 101997. [CrossRef]

73. Holum, M. Citizen Participation: Linking Government Efforts, Actual Participation, and Trust in Local Politicians. *Int. J. Public Adm.* **2023**, *46*, 915–925. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.