Discover the Nightprint of your site.
Search for your site or click the map to drop a pin. The tool will automatically retrieve light pollution data and nearby habitat information to inform the scoring.
For most of the history of artificial lighting, the question lighting designers have been trained to ask is: what do humans need to see? It is a reasonable question. It is also an incomplete one.
The night is not a neutral backdrop waiting to be illuminated. It is an ecological condition that has governed the behaviour of living organisms for billions of years. Approximately thirty percent of vertebrates and sixty percent of invertebrates are primarily nocturnal. The systems that move through the dark, insects navigating to flowers, bats following corridors between roost and foraging ground, birds correcting their position by starlight, soil organisms surfacing to do the work that keeps the ground alive, have no seat at the table when a lighting design brief is written. They never have.
The Nightprint is an attempt to give them one.
This is not a compliance tool. It does not produce a pass or fail. It is a conversation opener for more-than-human lighting design: a structured way of asking, before any lighting design decision is made, who else is present in the darkness of a specific place and what they stand to lose when a light is switched on. Humans are not the only stakeholders in the night. They are simply the only ones whose interests lighting design has historically been paid to consider.
The framework draws on the rapidly expanding science of Artificial Light at Night, a field that has grown from fewer than ten peer-reviewed studies per year in the 1990s to over one hundred annually by 2024. The evidence is now too substantial to treat as peripheral. This is version 1.0. It will change as practitioners use it, as the science develops, and as more-than-human lighting design becomes more mainstream in the profession. Contributions, challenges, and field applications are welcomed.
The Nightprint maps a site across seven dimensions. Each one names a community of stakeholders that artificial light affects and that conventional practice has historically not accounted for. The dimensions were chosen through deliberate consolidation: a set that a lighting design practitioner can score in a single working session using freely available data, where each dimension generates meaningfully different thinking, and where nothing ecologically significant disappears from view.
Six of the seven dimensions ask what a site needs protecting from artificial light. The seventh, civic and nocturnal identity, asks what it deserves. Including it prevents the framework from reading as purely restrictive and opens the question that often produces the most generative thinking, particularly when civic significance sits in tension with high ecological sensitivity.
Limitations: Cannot assess actual illuminance at specific windows or building orientation. A full assessment requires photometric calculation against ILP GN01:2021 and BS EN 12464-2.
Limitations: Bat species identification requires acoustic survey. A score of 4 or 5 is a flag for specialist investigation, not a confirmed finding. BCT Good Practice Guidelines (5th edition, 2023) required for definitive assessment.
Limitations: Cannot assess specific invertebrate species present, population density, or light levels at which phototaxis becomes ecologically significant for the species assemblage at this site.
Limitations: WFD ecological status is not available through open APIs and must be verified manually via the Environment Agency Catchment Data Explorer or equivalent national database.
Limitations: Cannot assess specific species composition, photoperiod sensitivity of individual species, or existing canopy-level illuminance. The soil ecology findings cited are recent and the field is still developing.
Limitations: The database is updated periodically and may not reflect recent local changes. The satellite measurement captures skyglow at regional scale and does not account for highly localised dark areas.
Limitations: Civic significance is inherently qualitative and contextual. OSM cannot assess a site's role in the nocturnal identity of a specific community.
Spectral composition. Blue-rich light above 4000K is significantly more ecologically harmful than warm sources across almost every dimension. The industry-wide LED transition improved energy performance and worsened ecological impact on many sites simultaneously. Colour temperature is not only an aesthetic choice. It is an ecological one.
Temporal pattern. Most ecological harm from artificial light is dose-dependent. A luminaire on an adaptive motion-responsive profile carries far lower ecological impact than one operating at full output from dusk to dawn. Adaptive control should be the default assumption. Continuous full-output operation should need to justify itself.
Anderson, S.J., et al. (2024). The ecological economics of light pollution. Remote Sensing, 16(14), 2591.
Bat Conservation Trust. Good Practice Guidelines for Bat Surveys, 5th edition (2023).
Bennie, J., et al. (2016). Artificial light at night causes top-down and bottom-up trophic effects on invertebrate populations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(2), 334 to 343.
Boyes, D.H., et al. (2021). Street lighting has detrimental impacts on local insect populations. Science Advances, 7(35).
BS EN 12464-2:2014. Light and lighting: Lighting of work places. Part 2: Outdoor work places.
Cabrera-Cruz, S.A., et al. (2018). Light pollution is greatest within migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds. Scientific Reports, 8, 3261.
Cai, L., et al. (2026). Artificial light at night alters earthworm communities and soil aggregation. Journal of Applied Ecology.
Falchi, F., et al. (2016). The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Science Advances, 2(6).
Ffrench-Constant, R.H., et al. (2016). Light pollution is associated with earlier tree budburst across the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 283(1833).
Fobert, E.K., et al. (2023). The impacts of artificial light at night on the ecology of temperate and tropical reefs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 379.
Holker, F., et al. (2010). Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(12), 681 to 682.
Institution of Lighting Professionals. Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light. GN01:2021.
International Dark-Sky Association. Model Lighting Ordinance with User's Guide. darksky.org.
Jain, A. (2018). More-than-Human Centred Design. Keynote address, IxDA Interaction18, Lyon. Superflux Studio. superflux.in.
Knop, E., et al. (2017). Artificial light at night as a new threat to pollination. Nature, 548, 604 to 607.
Kyba, C.C.M., et al. (2017). Artificially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in radiance and extent. Science Advances, 3(11).
US National Park Service (2026). Synthesis of Studies on the Effects of Artificial Light at Night. nps.gov/articles/effectsoflight.htm.
Van Langevelde, F., et al. (2018). Declines in moth populations stress the need for conserving dark nights. Global Change Biology, 24(3), 925 to 932.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
Nightprint v1.0. Published by Lightbahn, 2026. This is a living methodology. As practitioners apply the framework on real projects and share what they find, as the science develops, and as the conversation it is trying to start becomes more mainstream in the profession, the framework will be revised. The goal is not a fixed instrument. It is a shared and improving one.
Lightbahn is a lighting design practice committed to ecologically responsible and more-than-human design. lightbahn.com