IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v132y2019icp744-753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Wadley, David A.
  • Han, Jung Hoon
  • Elliott, Peter G.

Abstract

This project probes perceptions of long-standing concern about high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines (HVOTL). Psychometric, cultural and broader risk analysis frameworks permit close examination of homeowners' worries about relevant externalities. Investigated via a telephone survey in Queensland, Australia, the most significant perceptions are hypothesized to relate to technologically-infused risks. Visual effects and noise are the key externalities but shield deeper qualms relating to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs). Safety, environmental damage and property impacts are less feared. Regression analysis indicates that prior knowledge about HVOTLs and a person's residential locale influence risk perception, along with gender and age. The research supports the underlying precepts of a ‘risk society’ while offering significant policy guidelines for infrastructure and associated agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Wadley, David A. & Han, Jung Hoon & Elliott, Peter G., 2019. "Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 744-753.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:132:y:2019:i:c:p:744-753
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303921
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    2. Susan Elliott & Jessica McClure, 2009. "“There's just hope that no one's health is at risk”: residents' reappraisal of a landfill siting," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(2), pages 237-255.
    3. Paul Gallimore & Michael RossJayne, 1999. "Public and professional perceptions of HVOTL risks: the problem of circularity," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 243-255, January.
    4. Susana Batel & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2015. "A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(6), pages 1076-1095, June.
    5. Jarry T. Porsius & Liesbeth Claassen & Fred Woudenberg & Tjabe Smid & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2017. "“These Power Lines Make Me Ill”: A Typology of Residents’ Health Responses to a New High‐Voltage Power Line," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2276-2288, December.
    6. John D. Whittaker & Randolph P. Angle & David J. Wilson & Mitchell G. Choukalos, 1982. "Risk‐Based Zoning for Toxic‐Gas Pipelines," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3), pages 163-169, September.
    7. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel & Keil, Silke Inga & Bauer, Christian, 2017. "Effects of spatial proximity to proposed high-voltage transmission lines: Evidence from a natural experiment in Lower Saxony," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 137-147.
    8. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    9. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    10. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Marie‐Eve Cousin, 2006. "Implicit Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power and Mobile Phone Base Stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1021-1029, August.
    11. Peter Elliott & David Wadley, 2012. "Coming to Terms with Power Lines," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 179-201.
    12. Jed Cohen, Klaus Moeltner, Johannes Reichl and Michael Schmidthaler, 2016. "An Empirical Analysis of Local Opposition to New Transmission Lines Across the EU-27," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    13. Andrew R. Binder & Dietram A. Scheufele & Dominique Brossard & Albert C. Gunther, 2011. "Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 324-334, February.
    14. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    15. Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2016. "Realizing energy infrastructure projects – A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 184-193.
    16. Stoutenborough, James W. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2016. "The role of scientific knowledge in the public's perceptions of energy technology risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 206-216.
    17. Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    18. Stephen Jay, 2007. "Pylons in the Back Yard: Local Planning and Perceived Risks to Health," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 25(3), pages 423-438, June.
    19. M. Granger Morgan & Paul Slovic & Indira Nair & Dan Geisler & Donald MacGregor & Baruch Fischhoff & David Lincoln & Keith Florig, 1985. "Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 139-149, June.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    21. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Devine-Wright, Hannah & Sherry-Brennan, Fionnguala, 2010. "Visible technologies, invisible organisations: An empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supply networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4127-4134, August.
    22. R. K. Garg & A. A. Khan, 1991. "Risk Analysis of a Gas‐Processing Complex in India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 409-417, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    2. Hileman, Jacob D. & Angst, Mario & Scott, Tyler A. & Sundström, Emma, 2021. "Recycled text and risk communication in natural gas pipeline environmental impact assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Wadley & Peter Elliott & Jung Hoon Han, 2017. "Modelling homeowners’ reactions to the placement of high voltage overhead transmission lines," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 114-127, April.
    2. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    3. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    4. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    6. Azarova, Valeriya & Cohen, Jed & Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2019. "Designing local renewable energy communities to increase social acceptance: Evidence from a choice experiment in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1176-1183.
    7. Jan Witajewski-Baltvilks & Marek Antosiewicz & Andrzej Ceglarz & Haris Doukas & Alexandros Nikas & Jakub Sawulski & Aleksander Szpor & Baiba Witajewska-Baltvilka, 2018. "Risks associated with the decarbonisation of the Polish power sector," IBS Research Reports 05/2018, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    8. Jed J. Cohen & Johannes Reichl, 2022. "Comparing Internet and phone survey mode effects across countries and research contexts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 44-71, January.
    9. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    10. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    11. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    12. Sanya Carley & Stephen Ansolabehere & David M Konisky, 2019. "Are all electrons the same? Evaluating support for local transmission lines through an experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Cox, Emily, 2018. "Assessing long-term energy security: The case of electricity in the United Kingdom," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2287-2299.
    14. Nadejda Komendantova & Marco Vocciante & Antonella Battaglini, 2015. "Can the BestGrid Process Improve Stakeholder Involvement in Electricity Transmission Projects?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, August.
    15. Nelson, Hal T. & Wikstrom, Kris & Hass, Samantha & Sarle, Kirsten, 2021. "Half-length and the FACT framework: Distance-decay and citizen opposition to energy facilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    17. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    18. Jarry T. Porsius & Liesbeth Claassen & Fred Woudenberg & Tjabe Smid & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2017. "“These Power Lines Make Me Ill”: A Typology of Residents’ Health Responses to a New High‐Voltage Power Line," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2276-2288, December.
    19. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    20. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:132:y:2019:i:c:p:744-753. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.