IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i1p431-d475118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Achieve Justice in Transitioning to 100% Renewable Electricity? Survey of Public Perceptions in Sociotechnical Change

Author

Listed:
  • Adewale A. Adesanya

    (Environmental and Energy Policy Program, Social Sciences Department, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA)

Abstract

The cost of energy in the Western Upper Peninsula (WUP), a rural and northern part of the state of Michigan, is among the highest in the United States. This situation has resulted in hardship for WUP residents due to exorbitant electricity bills. While interest in renewable electricity (RE) has increased in the region, the unanswered questions are what factors would make WUP residents more or less supportive of a transition to 100% RE, and how does the support for a 100% RE transition differ between counties in the WUP? This research analyzed factors that would make residents more or less supportive of a 100% RE transition in the WUP. This research investigated public perceptions through a quantitative residents’ survey ( N = 347). Using logistic regression, the results show that residents’ likelihood to participate in a municipality-led initiative that will reduce their consumption by 5% is statistically significant to their probability of support for wind energy development at p < 0.05. Furthermore, the likelihood of 100% RE transition support is very high across WUP counties, with a similar trend for project preferences. The results in this research can provide a roadmap for future community-engaged planning on 100% RE in various counties in the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Adewale A. Adesanya, 2021. "Can Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Achieve Justice in Transitioning to 100% Renewable Electricity? Survey of Public Perceptions in Sociotechnical Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:431-:d:475118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/431/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/431/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    2. Delucchi, Mark A. & Jacobson, Mark Z., 2011. "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1170-1190, March.
    3. Enevoldsen, Peter & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2016. "Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 178-184.
    4. Ikejemba, Eugene C.X. & Schuur, Peter C. & Van Hillegersberg, Jos & Mpuan, Peter B., 2017. "Failures & generic recommendations towards the sustainable management of renewable energy projects in Sub-Saharan Africa (Part 2 of 2)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 639-647.
    5. Swofford, Jeffrey & Slattery, Michael, 2010. "Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2508-2519, May.
    6. Anna Goldstein & Claudia Doblinger & Erin Baker & Laura Díaz Anadón, 2020. "Patenting and business outcomes for cleantech startups funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 803-810, October.
    7. Jami, Anahita A.N. & Walsh, Philip R., 2014. "The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 194-202.
    8. Geels, Frank W. & Kemp, René, 2007. "Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 441-455.
    9. Hilary S. Boudet, 2019. "Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 446-455, June.
    10. Hart, Elaine K. & Jacobson, Mark Z., 2011. "A Monte Carlo approach to generator portfolio planning and carbon emissions assessments of systems with large penetrations of variable renewables," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2278-2286.
    11. Diesendorf, Mark & Elliston, Ben, 2018. "The feasibility of 100% renewable electricity systems: A response to critics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 318-330.
    12. Emily Prehoda & Joshua M. Pearce & Chelsea Schelly, 2019. "Policies to Overcome Barriers for Renewable Energy Distributed Generation: A Case Study of Utility Structure and Regulatory Regimes in Michigan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Becker, Sarah & Frew, Bethany A. & Andresen, Gorm B. & Zeyer, Timo & Schramm, Stefan & Greiner, Martin & Jacobson, Mark Z., 2014. "Features of a fully renewable US electricity system: Optimized mixes of wind and solar PV and transmission grid extensions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 443-458.
    14. Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    15. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    16. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    17. Emily Prehoda & Richelle Winkler & Chelsea Schelly, 2019. "Putting Research to Action: Integrating Collaborative Governance and Community-Engaged Research for Community Solar," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    18. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    19. Richelle Winkler & Lorri Oikarinen & Heather Simpson & Melissa Michaelson & Mayra Sanchez Gonzalez, 2016. "Boom, Bust and Beyond: Arts and Sustainability in Calumet, Michigan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Kumar, Surender & Managi, Shunsuke, 2009. "Energy price-induced and exogenous technological change: Assessing the economic and environmental outcomes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 334-353, November.
    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. Pascaris1, Alexis S. & Schelly, Chelsea & Rouleau, Mark & Pearce, Joshua M., 2021. "Do Agrivoltaics Improve Public Support for Solar Photovoltaic Development? Survey Says: Yes!," SocArXiv efasx, Center for Open Science.

    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. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Socio-technical barriers to domestic hydrogen futures: Repurposing pipelines, policies, and public perceptions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    2. Jinjin Guan & Harald Zepp, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Wolsink, Maarten, 2020. "Distributed energy systems as common goods: Socio-political acceptance of renewables in intelligent microgrids," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Brem, Alexander & Radziwon, Agnieszka, 2017. "Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects – A case from Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 130-141.
    5. Jain, Sanjay, 2020. "Fumbling to the future? Socio-technical regime change in the recorded music industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Homes of the future: Unpacking public perceptions to power the domestic hydrogen transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    7. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    8. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Markard, Jochen, 2012. "Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 895-906.
    9. Fabíola Sostmeyer Polita & Lívia Madureira, 2021. "Transition Pathways of Agroecological Innovation in Portugal’s Douro Wine Region. A Multi-Level Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Fotios Katimertzopoulos & Charis Vlados, 2019. "Towards a New Approach of Innovation in Less Developed Regional Business Ecosystems," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 12(2), pages 33-41, December.
    11. Steffen Roth & Jari Kaivo-Oja & Thomas Hirschmann, 2013. "Smart regions: two cases of crowdsourcing for regional development," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 20(3), pages 272-285.
    12. Nesari, Mohammad & Naghizadeh, Mohammad & Ghazinoori, Soroush & Manteghi, Manoochehr, 2022. "The evolution of socio-technical transition studies: A scientometric analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    14. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    15. Alison Deviney & John Classen & Jackie Bruce & Mahmoud Sharara, 2020. "Sustainable Swine Manure Management: A Tale of Two Agreements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Jacobson, Mark Z. & Delucchi, Mark A. & Bazouin, Guillaume & Dvorak, Michael J. & Arghandeh, Reza & Bauer, Zack A.F. & Cotte, Ariane & de Moor, Gerrit M.T.H. & Goldner, Elissa G. & Heier, Casey & Holm, 2016. "A 100% wind, water, sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy plan for Washington State," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 75-88.
    17. Chelsea Schelly & Don Lee & Elise Matz & Joshua M. Pearce, 2021. "Applying a Relationally and Socially Embedded Decision Framework to Solar Photovoltaic Adoption: A Conceptual Exploration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Chang, Rui-Dong & Chen, Yu-Long, 2016. "What hinder the further development of wind power in China?—A socio-technical barrier study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 465-476.
    19. Harriet Bulkeley & Vanesa Castán Broto & Anne Maassen, 2014. "Low-carbon Transitions and the Reconfiguration of Urban Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(7), pages 1471-1486, May.
    20. Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Sushandoyo, Dedy, 2015. "Transition pathways revisited: Established firms as multi-level actors in the heavy vehicle industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1017-1028.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:431-:d:475118. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.