LEARN

Lighting for life: What happened when we put wildlife sensitive lighting to the test?

Words by: WE-EF

What happens when scientists, a local council and a lighting manufacturer join forces to ask a critical question: are our wildlife sensitive lighting solutions actually wildlife sensitive?

A new pilot study conducted by the University of Melbourne, City of Salisbury and WE-EF LIGHTING set out to explore this, while also examining the correlated effects of these lighting solutions on human use of space.

The issue:

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is a growing concern for both wildlife and people. Most research has looked at one or the other, but rarely both. This study set out to change that by providing real-world evidence that bridges ecological and human outcomes.

The study:

Three trails were monitored over five months:
• PC Amber lighting (Little Para River Trail)
• 3000 K white LED (Mawson Lakes)
• No lighting (Dry Creek)

With acoustic monitors (Audiomoths) and LIDAR people counters, the team evaluated how lighting impacted wildlife sounds (birds, frogs, insects) and human trail use.

Key results:

• Wildlife at the PC Amber site still responded to natural moonlight, suggesting minimal disruption
• Bird song and biodiversity were significantly higher at Little Para River Trail (PC Amber) than at Mawson Lakes (3000 K)
• Frog and insect sounds were most pronounced at Mawson Lakes, but not necessarily in a positive way
• Public use of the Little Para River Trail increased fivefold after the lighting installation
• Human movement was negligible after 10 pm, supporting calls for adaptive lighting controls

Takeaway: Wildlife sensitive lighting, such as PC Amber, is a promising approach to supporting both biodiversity and community wellbeing when backed by thoughtful design and data.

Click on the links below to read the white paper and full findings:

White Paper: Lighting for Life
2024 Final Report – Wildlife Sensitive Lighting – University of Melbourne