1. Alan Gould, Berkeley California USA

2. Rosemary Walling, Marie Drake Planetarium, Juneau  AK

3. Todd Ullery, York PA

4. Adam Thanz - Erwin, TN

5. Sara Schultz, Minnesota State University Moorhead, USA

6. Julia Plummer, Penn State University, State College, Pennsylvania, PA

7. Amy Sayle from Morehead Planetarium at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

8. George Fleenor, Bradenton FL

9. Erin Graves - Hickory NC

10. Guilherme Frederico Marranghello, extreme South of Brazil. Planetário da Unipampa.

11. Becky Mignot, State College, PA

12. Dário Fonseca - Hemispherium @ Exploratório - Coimbra, Portugal

13. Karl von Ahnen, Santa Cruz Mountains, California

14. Katy Chapman, Minnesota State University Moorhead, Minnesota

15. Amie Gallagher, Raritan Valley Community College, Branchburg, NJ

16. John Erickson, Richmond, CA

17. Mary Holt, Flint, Michigan

AI Summary of Julia Plummer's Seminar (August 2026)

Light Pollution: 

Using the Planetarium to Motivate Audiences towards Action

How can we move audiences from learning about light pollution to taking action to address it? In this workshop, Julia Plummer will engage participants with research‑based insights from planetarium storytelling and discuss how narrative design can support audience understanding, concern, and motivation. Together, we will brainstorm concrete strategies for designing experiences that encourage audiences to take action in their homes and communities. Julia Plummer is a Professor of Science Education at Pennsylvania State University. As a researcher, Julia builds on her earlier career as a planetarium educator to investigate learning in the planetarium, spatial thinking, narrative-based learning, and embodied cognition. 

Contents

Overview

Key Concepts or Theories

Important Questions Raised

Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives

Detailed Summary

Research Study Design and Methodology

Research Findings: Knowledge Gains

Research Findings: Awareness, Opinions, and Willingness to Act

Collaborative Family Activity Findings

Two-Week Follow-Up: Actual Behavioral Changes

Discussion: Why Did the Intervention Work?

Practical Demonstrations and Activities

Implications for Planetarium Programming

Community Engagement and Advocacy

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Supplemental Resources

Overview

This seminar presented research on using planetarium programming to educate audiences about light pollution and motivate behavioral change. Professor Julia Plummer from Penn State University shared findings from a comparative study examining how different narrative approaches in planetarium shows impact audience knowledge, awareness, concern, and willingness to take action regarding light pollution. The research compared a locally-developed, place-based narrative show with an existing documentary-style program, both addressing the same core content about light pollution's causes, impacts, and solutions.

Key Concepts or Theories

Light Pollution Fundamentals: Human-made alteration to outdoor light levels affecting 80% of the global population, obscuring night skies, harming wildlife, disrupting human sleep patterns, and wasting energy.

Five Principles of Responsible Lighting: Targeted, shielded, warm-colored, useful, and controlled lighting to minimize light pollution while maintaining necessary illumination.

Narrative-Based Learning: Using storytelling as a pedagogical approach to help audiences connect emotionally with scientific content and make it personally relevant, potentially leading to sustained interest and behavioral change.

Value System Framework: Understanding that effective environmental education requires addressing audience value systems rather than presenting either-or choices, helping people see how multiple values can coexist.

Important Questions Raised

• Why should we care about light pollution beyond astronomy concerns?

• How can planetarium programming effectively translate audience interest into concrete behavioral changes?

• What elements of educational interventions prompt audiences to take action after leaving the planetarium?

• How can we balance competing values such as safety and dark skies without forcing audiences to choose one over the other?

• What role does collaborative family discussion play in reinforcing learning and promoting action?

Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives

• Light pollution affects human health, wildlife behavior, energy consumption, and access to natural night skies, impacting 80% of the global population

• Simple, actionable solutions exist including shielding lights, using motion detectors, pointing lights downward, using warmer color temperatures, and turning off unnecessary lights

• Both place-based narrative and documentary-style planetarium shows significantly increased audience knowledge, awareness, and motivation to address light pollution

• Families who attended the programs took concrete actions within two weeks, including changing outdoor lights, turning off lights, and discussing light pollution with others

• Collaborative family activities following planetarium shows may significantly enhance learning outcomes and behavioral change by creating explicit action plans

• Effective light pollution education addresses audience value systems, demonstrating that safety and dark skies are not mutually exclusive goals

• Planetarium educators are well-positioned to lead community conversations about light pollution and environmental stewardship

Detailed Summary

Research Study Design and Methodology

The study compared two planetarium programs addressing light pollution with 52 families (136 total participants: 64 children aged 8-12 and 72 adults) from the central Pennsylvania area. Participants were recruited from the local Penn State community and surrounding areas. The research received institutional review board approval, and all participants provided informed consent or assent.

The first program, "Have You Seen the Milky Way? I Think We May Have Lost It," was developed by the Penn State team specifically for this study. It incorporated place-based elements familiar to local audiences, such as Penn State's stadium lighting and local farms. The show used a hybrid design with three pre-recorded video segments featuring a grandmother and grandson discussing light pollution, interwoven with live presenter segments. The live portions included constellation identification, demonstrations of light pollution effects using the planetarium's lighting controls, an interactive sea turtle activity where audience members experienced how artificial light affects wildlife navigation, and a personal story from the presenter about light pollution challenges in their own neighborhood.

The comparison program was "Dark Side of Light," a high-quality documentary-style show produced by Vermont Observatory and Planetarium in Europe. This program covered the same core content about light pollution causes, impacts, and solutions but used a traditional documentary narrative without place-based elements specific to the Pennsylvania audience. To ensure comparable experiences, a five-minute live star talk was added to this program.

Data collection involved multiple stages. Upon arrival, families completed a pre-survey in a classroom adjacent to the planetarium assessing their knowledge of light pollution impacts, awareness and opinions about light pollution, and current actions taken to address it. After attending one of the two randomly assigned planetarium shows, families returned to the classroom for a collaborative activity where they worked together to answer questions about light pollution problems in their neighborhood, small actions they could take, and who they could talk to in their community. They then completed a post-survey with similar questions to the pre-survey. Two weeks later, participants received a follow-up survey via email asking what actions they had actually taken and with whom they had discussed light pollution. A $25 gift card incentive was offered for completing the follow-up survey, resulting in a 75% response rate with 47 responses from 39 of the 52 families.

Relevant Q&A

Alan Gould: Can you briefly explain what the p-values mean for those not savvy in research?

Julia Plummer: P-values measure how likely you are to get the same result if you repeat the test multiple times. We set the bar at a certain level—if we do the test 95 out of 100 times and get the same result, that's significant. A p-value less than 0.05 is the gold standard. The smaller the p-value (like less than 0.001), the more confident we can be in the result. If it's more than 0.05, we wouldn't be confident that there's a real improvement or difference.

Research Findings: Knowledge Gains

Both planetarium programs produced significant increases in audience knowledge about light pollution from pre-test to post-test across all participant groups. Participants demonstrated improved understanding that light pollution impacts human health, affects sea turtles and migratory birds, disrupts sleep patterns, increases energy consumption, and affects safety. There was no significant improvement in understanding that light pollution impacts stargazing because audiences already had high awareness of this effect before attending the shows, creating a ceiling effect.

When comparing the two shows, only one knowledge measure showed a significant difference: participants who attended "Have You Seen the Milky Way?" demonstrated greater understanding of light pollution's impact on sea turtles compared to those who attended "Dark Side of Light." This difference was attributed to the interactive sea turtle activity included only in the place-based show, where audience members pretended to be sea turtles navigating toward different light sources in the dome, experiencing firsthand how artificial light can lead them away from safety.

Overall, the lack of significant differences between the two programs on most knowledge measures was surprising to the research team, who had hypothesized that the place-based narrative would produce superior learning outcomes. Both programs effectively conveyed the same core content about light pollution causes, impacts, and solutions.

Relevant Q&A

Rosemary Walling: How effective did you find different ways to get feedback from children? Did you need parent participation or did you find ways to do it independently?

Julia Plummer: We targeted families with children aged 8-12 but encouraged bringing siblings of all ages, so we had a wide range including very young children. We tried to write survey questions understandable to children, but for those younger than 8, it was difficult and parents had to help them understand the questions, particularly the Likert scale format. It only worked because parents were there to help. If we'd done this with children alone, we would have needed different data collection methods—simpler questions, perhaps using happy faces or frowny faces rather than detailed scales.

Research Findings: Awareness, Opinions, and Willingness to Act

Both planetarium programs significantly increased participants' awareness and opinions regarding light pollution across multiple measures. After attending either show, participants showed increased belief that everyone has the right to see stars from their home, greater awareness of light pollution sources around their houses, stronger understanding that artificial light in their neighborhood needs to be reduced, and increased willingness to take actions to reduce light pollution.

However, similar to the knowledge findings, there were no significant differences between the two programs on any of the awareness and opinion measures. Both the place-based narrative show and the documentary-style show were equally effective at shifting audience perspectives and increasing their concern about light pollution issues.

Regarding willingness to take action, participants were asked before the program to identify all actions they were already taking to address light pollution, and after the program to select all actions they would be willing to take. Results showed substantial increases across multiple action categories. For turning off lights at night, 61 of 72 adults were already doing this before the show, increasing to 68 willing to do so afterward; for children, 44 were already turning off lights, increasing to 61 willing to do so. Larger increases were observed for more specific actions that audiences learned about during the shows, including adjusting device screens at night, pointing lights downward, using warmer colored lights, installing motion sensors, and using dimmers. On average, participants indicated willingness to consider 2-3 additional actions per person after attending the show, representing a significant increase in their action repertoire.

Collaborative Family Activity Findings

The collaborative family activity, conducted in a classroom immediately after the planetarium show, asked families to work together to answer three questions on a worksheet: What are some problems related to light pollution in your neighborhood or community? What is a small thing you could do to start addressing these problems when you get home? Who could you talk to in your community to address these problems, and what would you say?

Families took this activity seriously, with evidence of collaborative engagement visible in their responses. Worksheets showed multiple handwriting styles, indicating that both adults and children contributed to the answers, often taking turns writing responses. The main concerns families identified included too much light in their neighborhoods, loss of dark skies, and harm to wildlife. Specific examples included sleep problems, impacts on migratory bird navigation, difficulty seeing stars, and harm to moths and nocturnal insects—the latter being particularly interesting as it was not explicitly covered in either show, suggesting participants brought additional prior knowledge to the discussion.

For small actions they could take, families most commonly mentioned turning out lights at night and adjusting existing lights, with some providing detailed drawings and diagrams of their plans. When asked who they could talk to, responses ranged from immediate neighbors ("Could you turn off your porch lights?") to broader community engagement including homeowners association leaders, apartment managers, mayors, and other community leaders. The homeowners association issue emerged as more significant than the research team had anticipated, as many families lived in communities where they did not have direct control over outdoor lighting decisions.

While initially designed purely as a data collection tool, the research team came to believe this collaborative activity played a crucial role in the intervention's success by scaffolding family-based conversations and essentially having families write action plans for what they would do upon returning home.

Two-Week Follow-Up: Actual Behavioral Changes

The two-week follow-up survey revealed that the majority of participants had taken concrete actions to address light pollution since attending the planetarium show. Of the 47 respondents from 39 families, most reported taking at least one action. The most common action was turning off lights, followed by changing outdoor lights, using more window covers, changing light colors to warmer tones, installing motion detectors, and generally reducing light at home. Eight percent mentioned changes they were planning but had not yet implemented. Some participants reported they were already doing everything they could to address light pollution prior to the show. Approximately 25% reported no change in their behavior.

Participants also reported speaking with others about light pollution, including family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and children. This word-of-mouth communication extended the reach of the planetarium program beyond the immediate participants, creating a ripple effect in the community.

These follow-up results were particularly exciting to the research team, demonstrating that a 30-minute planetarium show, combined with pre- and post-activities, could produce measurable behavioral changes that persisted at least two weeks after the experience. The fact that three-quarters of responding families took some action represents a substantial success rate for an educational intervention.

Relevant Q&A

Amie Gallagher: Did you get a grant to do this workshop, particularly for the $25 gift cards?

Julia Plummer: Yes, our College of Education has a grant called the Power of Storytelling endowed by a previous dean. We applied for funding that paid for student time on the project and allowed us to give gift cards. This was very helpful because it's hard to get good return rates on follow-up surveys. With our small sample size from a planetarium that only holds 25-30 people, we really needed high response rates. If we'd had 500 families, a 10% return would have been fine, but with our numbers, the incentive was crucial to getting the 75% response rate we achieved.

Discussion: Why Did the Intervention Work?

Participants in the seminar identified several key elements that likely contributed to the intervention's success in producing behavioral change. The programs presented ecological harms that audiences could emotionally connect with, such as impacts on sea turtles, migratory birds, and human health, then connected these concerns to doable actions that participants could implement on a local scale. This approach made the problem feel manageable rather than overwhelming.

The concept of "low-hanging fruit" was important—light pollution is a comparatively easy environmental problem for individuals to address through simple actions like turning off lights, adjusting fixtures, or installing motion sensors. Unlike larger environmental challenges such as climate change, which can feel overwhelming and paralyzing, light pollution solutions are tangible and immediately actionable.

One participant framed the success in terms of value systems, suggesting that the programs effectively created a value system change rather than forcing either-or choices. People value both safety and dark skies, and the programs demonstrated how responsible lighting practices can honor both values simultaneously. The sea turtle example was particularly effective because "everyone loves turtles," tapping into existing values while connecting them to the light pollution issue.

The collaborative family activity emerged as a potentially crucial element that was not initially recognized by the research team. By scaffolding family-based conversations where participants synthesized what they learned and created explicit action plans—identifying problems, planning small actions, and determining who to talk to—the activity essentially had families commit to specific behaviors before leaving. This immediate synthesis and planning may have significantly increased the likelihood of follow-through.

The programs also addressed the misconception that more light equals more safety by explaining how glare from excessive or poorly directed light can actually reduce visibility and create safety hazards. Several participants noted the importance of this reframing in helping audiences understand that reducing light pollution does not mean sacrificing safety.

Relevant Q&A

Philip Groce: What you've really done is determine how a person's value system has changed. We keep what we value. If people value safety and view lighting as synonymous with safety, it's easy to understand why they like lighting. I think you created a value system change, and that's the key to success. The real question for planetariums is recognizing that we're trying to change a value system, and to do that, we need to prevent it from being an either-or situation. The turtles example works because everyone values turtles.

Julia Plummer: I love how you framed that. We have to address their whole value system because they could both want to see the beautiful night sky and want to feel safe. The programs addressed how you can follow the five principles of responsible lighting in ways that still allow you to be safe—like motion detector lights that provide security when needed but don't waste light at other times.

Practical Demonstrations and Activities

Participants shared several effective hands-on demonstrations for teaching about light pollution. Amy Sayle described a paper plate demonstration using a white paper plate, a flashlight in candle mode with an exposed bulb, and a small plastic figure taped to the plate. In a darkened planetarium, the presenter walks around showing the bare bulb, which blinds audience members so much they cannot see the figure on the plate. The presenter spins a story about being a driver unable to see deer on the road, or a pedestrian unable to see a friend or potential danger because of the glare. When a shield (PVC cap or hand) is placed over the light, suddenly the figure becomes visible, dramatically demonstrating how glare reduces visibility and how shielding improves it. This demonstration effectively shows that excessive light actually reduces safety rather than enhancing it.

Alan Gould described a similar activity used at Lawrence Hall of Science with mag lights and small figures, combined with counting stars in the planetarium sky before and after shielding lights, helping audiences quantify the impact of light pollution on sky visibility.

George Fleenor shared that the "Saving the Night" show produced by SEPA around 2002 effectively demonstrated how glare from lights can actually hide criminals rather than deter them, challenging the assumption that more light automatically means more safety. This show led to significant community engagement in his area, eventually resulting in local lighting ordinances being developed over a ten-year period.

One participant mentioned adapting similar activities for Girl Scout programs where older girls need to learn about light pollution for their badges, framing it as an engineering design challenge where children identify problems and design solutions.

Relevant Q&A

Alan Gould: That "Saving the Night" show from SEPA did a great job showing how the glare of lights can be a hindrance to safety—criminals can hide behind lights because the glare is so great. The International Dark Sky Association has studies showing it's not necessarily true that more light means more safety.

Julia Plummer: Some of my colleagues at Penn State are doing research in national parks, setting restroom light levels at different intensities and surveying visitors about their comfort levels. They're finding that visitors are more comfortable with lower levels of light than are usually being used in the parks. It's about figuring out the right level of lighting where people still feel safe—not so bright you can't see dangers, but not so low you don't feel safe.

Implications for Planetarium Programming

The research suggests several practical implications for planetarium educators seeking to engage audiences with light pollution or other socio-scientific issues. First, both narrative styles—place-based storytelling and documentary approaches—can be effective at increasing knowledge and shifting attitudes, suggesting that educators should choose the approach that best fits their resources, audience, and context rather than feeling pressured to create elaborate place-based narratives.

Second, incorporating explicit opportunities for audiences to synthesize learning and create action plans appears to be valuable, even if this means using planetarium time for activities that do not directly utilize the dome's capabilities. The collaborative family activity demonstrated that giving audiences space to discuss, plan, and commit to specific actions may significantly increase the likelihood of behavioral change. This could be adapted for planetarium settings by projecting questions and facilitating brief family or small group discussions before audiences leave, asking them to identify one action they will take or one person they will talk to about the issue.

Third, addressing audience value systems rather than presenting either-or choices is crucial. Effective programming acknowledges that audiences may have competing values (such as safety and dark skies) and demonstrates how solutions can honor multiple values simultaneously. This requires understanding local audience concerns and tailoring messages accordingly.

Fourth, connecting content to tangible, achievable actions is essential. Light pollution is particularly well-suited for this approach because individual actions can make a real difference. Educators should clearly communicate the "low-hanging fruit"—simple changes that audiences can implement immediately without significant cost or effort.

Fifth, interactive demonstrations that allow audiences to personally experience the problems and solutions (such as the sea turtle activity or glare demonstrations) appear to be particularly effective at creating memorable learning experiences that translate to behavioral change.

Finally, the research highlights the importance of follow-up and continued engagement. While the study used surveys, planetariums might consider other follow-up mechanisms such as email newsletters with additional resources, social media engagement, or community events that allow audiences to share their experiences and learn from each other.

Relevant Q&A

Alan Gould: I was impressed with your statement about the collaborative activity outside the planetarium. You can do collaborative activities inside the planetarium, and they're really valuable, but sometimes I think we're wasting the planetarium space because we're not using the night sky. That's a dilemma in my mind.

Julia Plummer: It's going to come down to what kind of space you have and what the audience will be doing. If it's a difference between having that conversation with families versus losing some families who won't go to another space, I'd rather do it in the planetarium because it is valuable. I do think that made a difference. It would have been harder to do the writing activity in the dome, but we could have projected questions and had them talk and share out. Anything that shifts audiences into making a plan before they leave—what action will your family take when you get home, who will you talk to, what will you look for driving home—something very clear and actionable that they might actually remember and do after they leave.

Community Engagement and Advocacy

Several participants shared experiences with community-level engagement on light pollution issues. George Fleenor described how the "Saving the Night" planetarium show led to long-term community change in his area. After educating the public through the planetarium and providing county council members with videos and materials from the International Dark Sky Association, it took about ten years for those seeds to grow and mature. Eventually, community members approached the county requesting action on light pollution, leading to ordinances addressing light trespass and keeping light directed downward. He continues to advocate for addressing color temperature issues with fixtures, though this remains an ongoing challenge. He also noted that the recent incident of 50 sea turtles killed by light pollution in his area (making national news) highlights that even when barrier islands are kept dark, light from nearby cities still affects wildlife.

The discussion emphasized that effective light pollution education operates at multiple levels: individual actions, family discussions, neighborhood conversations, and community advocacy. Planetarium educators can play a role at all these levels by educating audiences so they understand why these issues matter and can advocate to community leaders when opportunities arise.

The challenge of homeowners associations and apartment complexes emerged as a significant barrier, as many people do not have direct control over outdoor lighting in their communities. This suggests that planetarium programming might explicitly address how to engage with these decision-makers and provide audiences with talking points or resources for these conversations.

Participants also discussed the broader context of competing values and emerging challenges, such as satellite constellations for internet access that create both light pollution and eventual space debris. These discussions highlighted the importance of helping audiences understand that solutions should not require choosing between valued outcomes, but rather finding innovative approaches that honor multiple values simultaneously.

Relevant Q&A

George Fleenor: I want to thank Alan for praising the "Saving the Night" show. That was my hand in the picture that's been used everywhere. It led to a lot here locally because we educated the public and made people aware there were solutions. When commercial development started taking off, people approached the county saying they don't want over-lighting. The county went to the IDA website and found me in their backyard. It led to us writing ordinances that abate light and keep it down on the ground. Recently I tried to get them to address the temperature issue with fixtures—that's another uphill battle. The 50 turtles that got killed last week, making national news, that's in my backyard. Even though the island is dark, the city is not, and they're still going towards the brighter horizon. It's a global thing, a state thing, and it starts with small steps.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Julia Plummer acknowledged several limitations of the research study. The participant sample was limited to families in central Pennsylvania, predominantly from the Penn State community. Due to the planetarium's location on campus and the nature of recruitment, participants tended to have high levels of education, with many parents being Penn State faculty or staff. This limits the generalizability of findings to broader, more diverse audiences.

The small planetarium capacity (25-30 people) constrained the total sample size, making the intensive data collection approach necessary but also limiting the statistical power of some analyses. The research team needed high response rates on follow-up surveys to draw meaningful conclusions, which required offering incentives that might not be feasible for regular programming.

The study did not include specific resources or follow-up materials for participants to access after the show, which Plummer identified as a valuable addition for future programming. Providing clear pathways for continued learning and engagement could potentially enhance long-term behavioral change.

Future research directions include working with more diverse audiences to better understand how value systems and effective messaging might differ across communities. Plummer mentioned beginning a new project with middle and high school students in a STEM leadership program, where students will learn about light pollution and develop action plans that might include community advocacy. This approach of empowering youth to lead change efforts represents another promising direction for light pollution education.

The research team also recognized the need to better understand which specific elements of the intervention were most critical to success, particularly the role of the collaborative family activity, which emerged as potentially more important than initially anticipated.

• Elise Abbott's honors thesis on this research project:  LINK 

• Dark Sky International website: darksky.org

• "Dark Side of Light" planetarium show by Brno Observatory and Planetarium (freely available) LINK

• "Saving the Night" planetarium show produced by SEPA circa 2002

• Paper plate glare demonstration adapted from Night Sky Network, Astronomical Society of the Pacific:  LINK and LINK

• International Dark Sky Association research on lighting and safety: LINK

10:04:39 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

Light pollution drives some animals njts

10:04:44 From Dário Fonseca to Everyone:

impact on biodiversity

10:04:46 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

why a problem: harms living beings (including us)

10:04:48 From Katy Chapman (she/her) to Everyone:

Many organisms rely on light for daily patterns and migration

10:04:52 From George Fleenor to Everyone:

Because it affects all life on earth.

10:05:04 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

cuts off a source of awe and wonder

10:05:05 From Amie Gallagher to Everyone:

We don't get to see the sky.

10:05:05 From Rosanna Tilbrook to Everyone:

Losing our view of the night sky

10:05:09 From Rosemary Walling, to Everyone:

It "takes away" from experiences, nature, and observations.

10:05:16 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

Messes up astronomical images

10:05:29 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

harms something that is our natural & cultural heritage

10:05:48 From Karl von Ahnen to Everyone:

We all want to see the rest of the universe.

10:07:09 From Adam Thanz to Everyone:

Shielding, education

10:07:15 From Amie Gallagher to Everyone:

downward facing lights

10:07:18 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

turn off unneeded light, use motion sensors/timers when appropriate, shield lights

10:07:20 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

Be smarter about security lights

10:07:24 From Katy Chapman (she/her) to Everyone:

Outdoor lights facing downward

10:07:45 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

get people out observing the sky so they can get a sense of what they're missing

10:07:47 From George Fleenor to Everyone:

warmer longer wavelengths

10:07:53 From Karl von Ahnen to Everyone:

Try to convince people that bright lights don’t make you safer.

10:08:14 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

the paper plate shielding demo is very effective at educating

10:08:28 From Dário Fonseca to Everyone:

show decision makers it's actually cheaper to do things properly

10:08:59 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

addressing it in every single show!

10:08:59 From Amie Gallagher to Everyone:

Sometimes, but not always.

10:09:02 From Sara Schultz to Everyone:

Not really, but sometimes it comes up

10:09:08 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

Not currently...did in the past

10:09:12 From Rosanna Tilbrook to Everyone:

Yes, but could do more

10:09:21 From Dário Fonseca to Everyone:

yes, frequently

10:09:30 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

also have specific dark-skies focused programs, in addition to mentioning in every show

10:10:50 From John Gus Erickson to Everyone:

Most basic stargazing shows start with some kind of, "here's the stars you see in the city of..." and "here is what you see away from city lights."

10:10:51 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

A selection bias issue but our planetarium & skywatching audiences come in with high awareness

10:11:09 From Rosanna Tilbrook to Everyone:

Replying to "Most basic stargazing shows start with some kind o...":

Yep, exactly what we do

10:34:02 From Katy Chapman (she/her) to Everyone:

Knowledge and providing tangible things they could do to improve the problem.

10:34:38 From Mary Holt (She/Her) - Longway Planetarium, Flint MI to Everyone:

I missed the first bit - this was done at one planetarium with 2 different planetarium shows, is that correct?

10:34:53 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

Sea turtles activity was probably especially engaging

10:34:55 From John Gus Erickson to Everyone:

Pointing out the "low hanging fruit" is a good start.

10:35:17 From Sara Schultz to Everyone:

Replying to "I missed the first bit - this was done at one plan...":

Yep!

10:36:40 From iPhone (85) to Everyone:

What resources did you offer “for more information…”?

10:41:20 From George Fleenor to Everyone:

IDA has a lot of free material that can be duplicated and handed out after shows, in lobbies etc.

10:42:43 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

Saving the Night, By David H. Levy, Produced by the Southeastern Planetarium Association

10:43:58 From Mary Holt (She/Her) - Longway Planetarium, Flint MI to Everyone:

I think ASP maybe has something on this too? I'm trying to remember, I was going to do a show about light pollution back in 2020, it was supposed to launch in April so that didn't happen 😅

10:45:07 From Karl von Ahnen to Everyone:

Encourage people to learn their way around and enjoy the night sky.

10:45:15 From Julia Plummer to Everyone:

https://honors.libraries.psu.edu/?search_field=author&q=elise+abbott

10:45:51 From Erin Graves to Everyone:

Thanks all!

10:45:57 From Mary Holt (She/Her) - Longway Planetarium, Flint MI to Everyone:

Thank you, Julia! 🙂

10:47:06 From Katy Chapman (she/her) to Everyone:

Are there grants/incentives, etc… available to campuses/organizations to switch to less light intensive/dark sky friendly light fixtures, etc…

10:51:57 From Amie Gallagher to Everyone:

We set up a similar activity to Amy's for our Girl Scout programs. Some of the older girls need to learn about light pollution for one of the badges.

10:51:59 From George Fleenor to Everyone:

Don't be afraid to get involved in your own community to help change the local lighting ordinances. You'll at least be making them aware of the issues and the possible ways of making things better.

10:52:15 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

Here's a short training video for our adaptation of that paper plate demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFIXoicLU-Y&list=PLoaDGdWqkPxqgGjeGHLdylLwrfufuGAJM&index=3

10:53:32 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

Here's the PDF of the facilitator guide (with the appropriate credit -- I misspoke about the original source, I think) https://ncsciencefestival.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/1442/2025/08/2023-Good-Light-Good-Night-2.28.23.pdf

10:54:10 From Mary Holt (She/Her) - Longway Planetarium, Flint MI to Everyone:

LHS did only do live, they've been doing less lately, unfortunately

10:55:05 From Mary Holt (She/Her) - Longway Planetarium, Flint MI to Everyone:

Julia, how long were each of the shows? I wasn't here yet if you said. Also were they both the same length?

10:55:51 From Julia Plummer to Everyone:

They each lasted about 30 minutes. I think the Dark Side of Light is about 22-25 minutes so we added an additional 5-8 minute live star talk.

11:02:17 From Alan Gould to Everyone:

George, Thanks for your work creating Saving the Night!!

11:03:58 From George Fleenor to Everyone:

Thanks. It has always been an issue for me and one that I continue to deal with and try to educate on.

11:05:58 From Amy Sayle to Everyone:

Thanks so much for your presentation!

11:08:48 From Karl von Ahnen to Everyone:

Thanks Julia. You do us all a great service with all your great research.

11:09:50 From Mary Holt (She/Her) - Longway Planetarium, Flint MI to Everyone:

Gotta run, take a lil break before more AstroSociety stuff! 🙂 Thank you, Julia!

11:23:56 From George Fleenor to Everyone:

Enjoyed it. Thanks. Gotta run.