ISE08/18-19
| Subject: | environmental affairs, light pollution, external lighting |
- Light pollution in Hong Kong is alleged to be amongst the worst around the world due to its high population density and close proximity of advertising signboards in residential neighbourhood, according to an academic study released in 2012.1Legend symbol denoting Pun et al. (2012). Reportedly, prolonged exposure to light nuisance could have adverse impacts on human health, such as sleep deprivation and depression.2Legend symbol denoting Legislative Council Secretariat (2013). For those "mixed use zones" with a high concentration of high-rise residential buildings located adjacent to commercial buildings (e.g. Causeway Bay and Yau Tsim Mong), the nuisance caused by external lighting is particularly serious, resulting in surging number of complaints (Figure 1).3Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2017 and 2018). Members have raised the concerns over light pollution at the Legislative Council on at least four occasions over the past three years.4Legend symbol denoting Over the past three years, two Council Questions on light pollution were raised at the Council meetings of 5 July 2017 and 14 November 2018 respectively, while Members discussed light pollution in two motion debates held at the Council meetings of 16 November 2017 and 13 December 2018 respectively.
Source: Environmental Protection Department.
- After a six-year policy review during 2009-2015, the Government decided not to take a legislative approach in regulating light nuisance due to "a lack of consensual view" in the community, paying regard to the operational needs of the business sector and the reputable night scene of Hong Kong. Instead, it launched a "Charter on External Lighting" ("the Charter") on a voluntary basis in April 2016, requiring signatory operators to switch off external lighting installations from late night till dawn (11:00 pm to 7:00 am). However, this could not halt the uptrend in complaints against external lighting, which soared by a total of 42% during 2016-2018.
- Toronto in Canada has become another global city to tighten regulation of light nuisance in recent years, adopting a mandatory approach in 2010. As its living environment is broadly similar to Hong Kong in terms of (a) population density and (b) co-location of residential and commercial premises in mixed-use areas in downtown, this issue of Essentials provides an overview of the regulatory measures over external lighting taken in Toronto, after a brief discussion of those in Hong Kong.
Regulatory developments on light nuisance in Hong Kong
- Policy review during 2009-2015: About half of the local complaints over light nuisance are related to shop lightings, signboards and video walls. In 2009, the Government commissioned a consultancy study on "feasibility of tackling external lighting through legislation", with reference to the policy experience of 14 selected places (e.g. Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney, New York, and London) and views of relevant stakeholders in Hong Kong.5Legend symbol denoting The study selected 14 overseas cities and economies including the Canadian Province of Ontario (with Toronto as its capital city) in accordance with the aspects of building forms, population density, economic activities, land use and building mix that are of comparable situation to Hong Kong relating to external lighting. As the study was completed in 2011 and did not cover the subsequent regulatory development in Toronto brought about by the passing of the Sign By-Law in 2010, this piece would focus on the regulatory measures introduced in Toronto since 2010 to assess its policy effectiveness over external lighting. See GovHK (2008) and Environment Bureau (undated). After completion of the study in 2011 and a public consultation in 2013, the Task Force on External Lighting ("Task Force") advised in 2015 that the overseas legislative approach was not applicable in Hong Kong. Apart from absence of consensus in the local community, the Task Force also cited the following reasons:
(a) Difficulty in drawing up lighting zoning map: As different units within the same building tend to have different exposure to ambient lighting (hinging on its orientation within the highly mixed commercial-cum-residential developments) in Hong Kong, it was deemed to be not feasible to draw up a "meaningful" lighting zoning in the urban areas; (b) Difficulty in identifying sources of light nuisance: In the context of an ultra-high building density in Hong Kong, not only is it hard to identify the source of nuisance amongst multiple lighting sources, but also to apportion the nuisance "in a fair and objective manner"; and (c) Difficulty in quantifying enforcement parameters: As light pollution is a rather new area subject to regulation in advanced places, there is no universally agreed measurement of luminance level or other technical standards yet.6Legend symbol denoting Environment Bureau (2013 and 2015b) and GovHK (2011). - Voluntary approach since 2016: Instead, the Government took a "multi pronged" approach, comprising (a) launching the Charter in April 2016 on a voluntary basis; (b) promising to review the effectiveness of this Charter two years after implementation; and (c) asking the signatories to observe the best practices laid down on the guidelines for such installations.7Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2015 and 2018). In short, owners of external lighting installations for decorative or advertising purposes are encouraged to switch them off from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am
- By end-2018, nearly 5 000 business establishments across major sectors have signed the Charter voluntarily. The Government reported that 99% of the signatories complied with the switch-off requirement at the pre-set time in both 2017 and 2018.
- Issues of concerns: However, complaints over light nuisance continued to surge after 2016, by 42% in just two years to 477 cases in 2018, faster than 29% rise recorded in four years during 2013-2016 (Figure 1).8Legend symbol denoting In 2016, about 48% of complaints on external lighting installation received were related to lighting for shops, signboards and video walls. Amongst the 18 District Councils, Yau Tsim Mong received most complaints in 2018, with 56 cases. This was followed by Central and Western (44 cases) and Wan Chai (41 cases). See GovHK (2017 and 2018). Here are some of the key concerns. First, the switch-off duration of just eight hours after 11:00 pm. is deemed to be too short, as many residents consider daily exposure of strong lighting from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm still quite annoying.9Legend symbol denoting 明報(2017年6月4日)。 The switch-off requirement could not help much for those residents severely impacted by the light nuisance. Secondly, it is alleged that the 5 000 signatories cannot reflect the effectiveness of the Charter, as some of the signatories do not have such light installations on the one hand, and a considerable major nuisance sources are yet to be the signatories.10Legend symbol denoting 香港01(2018年8月6日)。 Thirdly, the Charter is not legal-binding and signatories could withdraw from the Charter any time. Fourthly, the Charter cannot prevent those light nuisance caused by emerging technology (e.g. flashing decorative lights), particularly seen in newly developed buildings.11Legend symbol denoting With the advancement of lighting technology (i.e. big screens and special effects such as flashing lights), its cost has become more affordable. Notwithstanding the Charter, there are currently no ordinances specifically regulating light nuisance caused by external lighting nor lighting technology. See香港01 (2018年11月20日) and 明報(2016年7月25日). Against this backdrop, there have been increased advocacy for tighter regulation of external lighting in recent years.
- A policy review during 2018-2020: In line with the undertaking made in 2016, the Government has kicked off a review on the effectiveness of the Charter in August 2018. New consultancy studies are commissioned to gauge the views of different sectors in Hong Kong and study applicable overseas experience. The review is scheduled for completion by the first half of 2020.12Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2018).
Regulatory developments over external lighting in Toronto
- Toronto is the largest city in Canada, with a population size of 2.7 million. More specifically in its downtown (with an area of 26 km2), the population density is very high at 9 312 people/km2.13Legend symbol denoting The density in the downtown of Toronto is amongst the highest in affluent cities. Coupled with co-location of high-rise commercial and residential buildings in the downtown, regulatory developments of external lighting there may have reference value for Hong Kong.
- Mandatory approach since 2010: Since the mid-2000s, residents in the downtown of Toronto had lodged an increasing number of complaints against nuisance caused by external lighting installations, particularly signboards. Together with a policy commitment to conserve energy and to combat climate change in 2007, the Toronto City Council ("TCC") responded with the passing of the Sign By-law in 2010.14Legend symbol denoting Toronto City Council (2009a).
- Regulatory measures in Toronto: By and large, TCC takes the following mandatory measures to address the problem of external lighting:
(a) Regulatory parameters on signboards: Unlike the voluntary approach in Hong Kong, TCC regulates the signboards with reference to a host of parameters under the Sign By-law. These parameters vary across nine categories of sign districts in Toronto. Offenders are liable to a fine of C$500-C$100,000 (HK$2,915-HK$583,000);15Legend symbol denoting There are nine categories of sign districts and seven Special Sign Districts in Toronto drawn up by the land use specified in the city planning. For residential districts and residential-cum-commercial districts, more stringent parameters are applied to minimize the nuisance to residents. See Toronto City Council (2016).
Taking commercial-cum-residential district as an illustration, third party signs (i.e. a sign that advertises business unrelated to the premise where the sign is located) need to meet the following requirements:(i) Face area of the sign: Within 3 m2; (ii) Height of the sign: Within 3 m; (iii) Distance of the sign from residential areas: At least 30 m; (iv) Brightness of the sign: Within 300 nits (a desktop computer monitor is between 50 to 300 nits) at night; (v) Electronic signs: For those electronic signs displaying more flashes and brightness which are deemed to have greater impact, they are strictly prohibited in residential-cum-commercial districts and residential districts. Even in commercial districts, the parameters are more stringent than those for ordinary signs (e.g. 500 m distance between these electronic signs, 60 m away from residential-commercial or residential areas, duration of each electronic copy maintained at least 10 seconds); and (vi) Switch-off period: From 11:00 pm to 7:00 am in commercial-cum-residential districts, but 9:00 pm to 7:00 am in residential districts.16Legend symbol denoting Toronto City Council (2013a, 2013b, 2015 and 2018c). (b) Addressing the concerns of the advertising business: To address the concerns of the advertising industry, special channels have been established for "variance applications" for those advertisements which do not comply with the Sign By-law. These applications are considered by TCC or the Sign Variance Committee17Legend symbol denoting Sign variance applications are mainly considered by the Sign Variance Committee, a public board with experts in planning, law, economic development and citizen advocacy appointed by TCC, while TCC will consider applications which would vastly affect the land use caused by the proposed signs. on a case-by-case basis after consultation with the neighbourhood. Appeal of the decisions made by these authorities is also allowed. Moreover, "Special Sign Districts" are demarcated in the commercial centres of the downtown, with more relaxed application of parameters to address the concerns of the advertisers; (c) Setting up dedicated enforcement team: A dedicated team (i.e. Sign By-law Unit) is established in Toronto Building Department to enforce the Sign By-law, with a total of 18 staff. The Unit is tasked with handling complaints of nuisance due to signboards, conducting site inspections and processing sign-related applications;18Legend symbol denoting As reply by the Sign By-law Unit on 2 July 2019, the Unit reviewed some 2 000 sign permit applications per year, conducted 432 investigations and took 157 enforcement actions annually during 2011-2018. Complaints on signs cover many areas including building structure, lighting of signs and illegal signs erected in Toronto. and (d) Imposing Third Party Sign Tax ("TPST") for cost recovery: To fund the new enforcement team, a new tax was levied on the owners of third party signs in 2010. There are six classes of TPST, based on the size, type and technology of the sign and proportionate to its nuisance caused to the surroundings. The advertising industry had made a legal appeal against the tax in 2011, but the court ruling was in favour of the tax on the grounds of environmental protection. The tax rate has also been adjusted in 2018 to reflect the nuisance caused by different types of signs. Annual tax revenue from TPST averaged at some C$12 million (HK$70 million) in recent years.19Legend symbol denoting The TPST rates for 2019 ranges C$1,282-C$42,500 (HK$7,474-HK$247,775) per sign, of which the highest sign class (Class VI) are large electronic signs which are "the most significant contributors to light pollution" in the community. The tax burden is estimated to be less than 7% of the gross annual revenue of advertising industry in Toronto and indexed to inflation for annual rate increase. See Toronto City Council (2009b and 2018b). - Policy effectiveness in Toronto: TCC has been striking a balance between various concerns, including those of residents and advertising industry.20Legend symbol denoting Toronto City Council (2009a). The Sign By-law seems to have addressed the nuisance concerns, with the number of installations of third-party signs falling by 14% to 1 944 during 2011-2018. Moreover, the number of investigations in relation to received complaints on third party signs decreased by 20% to 463 during 2011-2018, while enforcement actions taken declined sharply by 82% to 68 over the same period.21Legend symbol denoting Toronto City Council (2018a). Meanwhile, the negative effect of the regulation on the advertising industry seems to be quite contained.22Legend symbol denoting Specific data on changes of revenue of outdoor advertising in Toronto is not available. As an indicator, the gross revenue of outdoor advertising in Canada rose by 39% from C$567 million (HK$3.3 billion) in 2010 to C$789 million (HK$4.6 billion) in 2016. Toronto was the top market for outdoor advertising in Canada, followed by Montreal and Vancouver. See Canadian Out of Home Marketing and Measurement Bureau (2019).
Observations
- Regulation of external lighting needs to balance the concerns of various stakeholders, including residents and the adverting industry. While the Hong Kong Government is reviewing the effectiveness of the voluntary approach in the form of Charter, the respective measures taken in Toronto are more diversified, including (a) introducing measurable parameters on size and distance of illuminated signs; (b) establishing a dedicated enforcement team; and (c) imposing a tax/fee on erecting third party signs for cost recovery.
Prepared by LEUNG Chi-kit
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
12 July 2019
Endnotes:
References:
| Hong Kong
| |
| 1. | Environment Bureau. (2013) Task Force on External Lighting - Document for Engaging Stakeholders and the Public.
|
| 2. | Environment Bureau. (2015a) Guidelines on Industry Best Practices for External Lighting Installations.
|
| 3. | Environment Bureau. (2015b) Report of the Task Force on External Lighting.
|
| 4. | Environment Bureau. (2019) Charter on External Lighting.
|
| 5. | Environment Bureau. (undated) Study on overseas practices in guiding and regulating external lighting.
|
| 6. | GovHK. (2008) The 2008-09 Policy Address - Embracing New Challenges.
|
| 7. | GovHK. (2011) LCQ13: Study on regulating external lighting installations.
|
| 8. | GovHK. (2015) Task Force on External Lighting submits report to Government.
|
| 9. | GovHK. (2017) LCQ11: Light pollution.
|
| 10. | GovHK. (2018) LCQ21: Light nuisance.
|
| 11. | Legislative Council Secretariat. (2013) Adverse Health Effects of the Urban Hong Kong Environment. LC Paper No. CB(1)406/12-13(01).
|
| 12. | Pun, C.S. et al. (2012) Report of Hong Kong Night Sky Brightness Monitoring Network.
|
| 13. | 《LED屏幕成本低 環團：自願約章難阻光害》，《明報》，2016年7月25日。
|
| 14. | 《大角咀工廈外牆晚晚閃擾民 管理公司連環保署都唔俾面》，《香港01》，2018年11月20日。
|
| 15. | 《戶外燈光約章成立一年 條街依然光到眼盲》，《明報》，2017年6月4日。
|
| 16. | 《〈戶外燈光約章〉濫竽充數？立法規管阻力何在？》，《香港01》，2018年8月6日。
|
| Toronto
| |
| 17. | Canadian Out of Home Marketing and Measurement Bureau. (2019) Canada/USA: Facts & Stats. Available from: https://www.commb.ca/facts-stats/ [Accessed July 2019].
|
| 18. | Toronto City Council. (2009a) Appendix D - Analysis of stakeholder submissions.
|
| 19. | Toronto City Council. (2009b) Third Party Sign Tax (TPST) City Council Briefing.
|
| 20. | Toronto City Council. (2013a) Electronic and Illuminated Sign Study and Recommendations for Amendments to Chapter 694 of the Municipal Code.
|
| 21. | Toronto City Council. (2013b) Planning & Design Review of Illuminated & Electronic Signs.
|
| 22. | Toronto City Council. (2014a) Enforcement Strategy for Chapter 694 of the Municipal Code.
|
| 23. | Toronto City Council. (2014b) Supplementary Report - Electronic and Illuminated Sign Study.
|
| 24. | Toronto City Council. (2015) Electronic and Illuminated Sign Study and Recommendations for Amendments to Chapter 694.
|
| 25. | Toronto City Council. (2016) Amendments to the Sign By-law.
|
| 26. | Toronto City Council. (2017) Best practices for effective lighting.
|
| 27. | Toronto City Council. (2018a) Report from the Treasurer and the Interim Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building on Third Party Sign Tax - Review and Proposed Amendments - Attachments 1 to 4.
|
| 28. | Toronto City Council. (2018b) Third Party Sign Tax - Review and Proposed Amendments.
|
| 29. | Toronto City Council. (2018c) Toronto Municipal Code (Cap. 694) Signs, General.
|
Essentials are compiled for Members and Committees of the Legislative Council. They are not legal or other professional advice and shall not be relied on as such. Essentials are subject to copyright owned by The Legislative Council Commission (The Commission). The Commission permits accurate reproduction of Essentials for non-commercial use in a manner not adversely affecting the Legislative Council, provided that acknowledgement is made stating the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat as the source and one copy of the reproduction is sent to the Legislative Council Library. The paper number of this issue of Essentials is ISE08/18-19.