Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition

Energy Policy

Volumn 87, Issue , 2015, Pages 573-583

  Lienert, Pascal ^a   Suetterlin, Bernadette ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Energy transition; Grid expansion and modification; High voltage power lines; Public acceptance; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EXPANSION; RISK PERCEPTION;

ACCEPTANCE OF TECHNOLOGIES; AFFECTIVE RESPONSE; ENERGY POLICY MAKERS; ENERGY TRANSITIONS; GRID EXPANSIONS; HIGH-VOLTAGE POWER LINE; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; TECHNOLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS;

ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION NETWORKS;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; ENERGY POLICY; PERCEPTION; POWER LINE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RENEWABLE RESOURCE;

EID: 84945545835     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.023     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Aas Ø., Devine-Wright P., Tangeland T., Batel S., Ruud A. Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: a comparative survey. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2:30-37.
2. Ahlbom A., Cardis E., Green A., Linet M., Savitz D., Swerdlow A., Epidemiology I.S.C. Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and health. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109:911-933.
3. Alhakami A.S., Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 1994, 14:1085-1096.
4. Bell D., Gray T., Haggett C. The 'social gap'in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ. Politcs 2005, 14:460-477.
5. Bevanger K. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines: a review. Biol. Conserv. 1998, 86:67-76.
6. BFE Schweizerische Elektrizitaetsstatistik 2013 [Swiss electricity statistic 2013] 2013, Schweizerisches Bundesamt für Energie, Bern.
7. Bronfman N.C., Jimenez R.B., Arevalo P.C., Cifuentes L.A. Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 2012, 46:246-252.
8. Bundesrat Energieperspektiven 2050-Analyse der Stromangebotsvarianten des Bundesrats: Faktenblatt [Energy perspectives 2050-Federal Council's analysis of the options for provision of electricity: Fact sheet] 2011, Schweizerischer Bundesrat, Bern.
9. Bundesrat Strategie Stromnetze; Detailkonzept im Rahmen der Energiestrategie 2050 [Electricity Networks Strategy; Detailed Concept in the framework of the Energy Strategy 2050] 2013, Schweizerischer Bundesrat, Bern.
10. Cain N.L., Nelson H.T. What drives opposition to high-voltage transmission lines?. Land Use Policy 2013, 33:204-213.
11. Cass N., Walker G. Emotion and rationality: the characterisation and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emot. Space Soc. 2009, 2:62-69.
12. Claassen L., Smid T., Woudenberg F., Timmermans D.R.M. Media coverage on electromagnetic fields and health: content analysis of Dutch newspaper articles and websites. Health Risk Soc. 2012, 14:681-696.
13. Cohen J.J., Reichl J., Schmidthaler M. Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: a critical review. Energy 2014, 76:4-9.
14. Cotton M., Devine-Wright P. NIMBYism and community consultation in electricity transmission network planning. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation 2010, 115-130.
15. Cotton M., Devine-Wright P. Making electricity networks "visible": Industry actor representations of "publics" and public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Underst. Sci. 2012, 21:17-35.
16. Cotton M., Devine-Wright P. Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56:1225-1245.
17. Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place Identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 19:426-441.
18. Devine-Wright P. Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: a tidal energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31:336-343.
19. Devine-Wright P. Explaining "NIMBY" objections to a power line: the role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45:761-781.
20. Doukas H., Karakosta C., Flamos A., Psarras J. Electric power transmission: an overview of associated burdens. Int. J. Energy Res. 2011, 35:979-988.
21. Draper G., Vincent T., Kroll M.E., Swanson J. Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study. Br. Med. J. 2005, 330:1290-1292A.
22. Elliott P., Wadley D. Coming to terms with power lines. Int. Plan. Stud 2012, 17:179-201.
23. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2000, 13:1-17.
24. Foxon T.J. Transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity future. Energy Policy 2013, 52:10-24.
25. Furby L., Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Gregory R. Public perceptions of electric power transmission lines. J. Environ. Psychol. 1988, 8:19-43.
26. Hobman E.V., Ashworth P. Public support for energy sources and related technologies: the impact of simple information provision. Energy Policy 2013, 63:862-869.
27. Huijts N.M.A., Molin E.J.E., Steg L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16:525-531.
28. Jackson T.O., Pitts J. The effects of electric transmission lines on property values: a literature review. J. Real Estate Lit. 2010, 18:239-259.
29. Keir L., Watts R., Inwood S. Environmental justice and citizen perceptions of a proposed electric transmission line. Community Dev. 2014, 45:107-120.
30. Kim Y., Kim M., Kim W. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2013, 61:822-828.
31. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127:267-286.
32. 2 storage. Risk Anal. 2009, 29:743-751.
33. Navrud S., Ready R.C., Magnussen K., Bergland O. Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: Do underground cables pass the benefit-cost test?. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33:281-296.
34. Owens S., Driffill L. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy 2008, 36:4412-4418.
35. Parkhill K., Demski C., Butler C., Spence A., Pidgeon N. Transforming the UK energy system: Public values, attitudes and acceptability-Synthesis Report 2013, UKERC, London.
36. Peters E., Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 26:1427-1453.
37. Pidgeon N., Demski C.C. From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bull. At. Sci. 2012, 68:41-51.
38. Priestley T., Evans G.W. Resident perceptions of a nearby electric transmission line. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16:65-74.
39. Roepke L. The development of renewable energies and supply security: a trade-off analysis. Energy Policy 2013, 61:1011-1021.
40. Schwarz N., Clore G.L. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being-informative and directive functions of affective states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 45:513-523.
41. Siegrist M., Suetterlin B. Human and nature-caused hazards: the affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Anal. 2014, 34:1482-1494.
42. Siegrist M., Visschers V.H.M. Acceptance of nuclear power: the Fukushima effect. Energy Policy 2013, 59:112-119.
43. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004, 24:311-322.
44. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G. The affect heuristic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 177:1333-1352.
45. Soini K., Pouta E., Salmiovirta M., Uusitalo M., Kivinen T. Local residents' perceptions of energy landscape: the case of transmission lines. Land Use Policy 2011, 28:294-305.
46. Swissgrid Energiewende-Übertragungsnetz mit Schlüsselrolle [Energy transition-Transmission network with keyrole] 2012, Swissgrid AG, Laufenburg.
47. Swissgrid Erdverkabelung im Höchstspannungsnetz [Underground cabeling in the high-voltage transmission network] 2013, Swissgrid AG, Frick.
48. Tobiasson, W. Beestermöller, C., Jamasb, T., 2015. Public Engagement in Electricity Network Development: A Case Study of the Beauly-Denny Project in Scotland. Faculty of Economics Working Paper, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
49. Toke D. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1527-1539.
50. UN, 2010. Framework convention on climate change. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, United Nations, Cancun.
51. Vajjhala S.P., Fischbeck P.S. Quantifying siting difficulty: a case study of US transmission line siting. Energy Policy 2007, 35:650-671.
52. Visschers V.H.M., Siegrist M. How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Anal. 2013, 33:333-347.
53. Visschers V.H.M., Siegrist M. Find the differences and the similarities: relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40:117-130.
54. Wolsink M. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2692-2704.
55. Wuestenhagen R., Wolsink M., Buerer M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2683-2691.
56. Zajonc R.B. Feeling and thinking-preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol. 1980, 35:151-175.
57. Zoellner J., Schweizer-Ries P., Wemheuer C. Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 2008, 36:4136-4141.