IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are all electrons the same? Evaluating support for local transmission lines through an experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sanya Carley
  • Stephen Ansolabehere
  • David M Konisky

Abstract

A crucial factor in U.S. energy infrastructure development is the degree to which citizens that reside near a development support or oppose the project. While the literature offers several explanations about what shapes individuals’ perceptions of energy projects, few have considered the importance of cognitive heuristics and the law of contagion. Here, we employ a survey experiment on a nationally-representative sample of 2,000 respondents to test whether knowing which energy resources connect to a high-voltage transmission line dictate support for the line. Results reveal that information about the source of electricity is fundamentally important. If a transmission line is said to carry electricity from a solar and wind development, a respondent is significantly more likely to support development of the line. If the line instead is said to carry electricity from a natural gas or coal plant, respectively, respondents are significantly less likely to support it. This study has implications for energy infrastructure development, messaging, and public acceptance of energy projects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219066
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219066
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219066&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219066?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Peter Elliott & David Wadley, 2012. "Coming to Terms with Power Lines," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 179-201.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:50-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Groothuis, Peter A & Miller, Gail, 1997. "The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 241-257, December.
    5. Mills, Sarah Banas & Bessette, Douglas & Smith, Hannah, 2019. "Exploring landowners’ post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 754-762.
    6. Roshanak Nateghi & Seth D. Guikema & Yue (Grace) Wu & C. Bayan Bruss, 2016. "Critical Assessment of the Foundations of Power Transmission and Distribution Reliability Metrics and Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 4-15, January.
    7. James B. Elsner & James P. Kossin & Thomas H. Jagger, 2008. "The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones," Nature, Nature, vol. 455(7209), pages 92-95, September.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    9. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    10. Leah C. Stokes & Christopher Warshaw, 2017. "Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 1-6, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    3. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2016. "Cumulative Response to Sequences of Terror Attacks Varying in Frequency and Trajectory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2272-2284, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    6. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    7. Liu, Peng & Ma, Yanjiao & Zuo, Yaqing, 2019. "Self-driving vehicles: Are people willing to trade risks for environmental benefits?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 139-149.
    8. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    9. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    10. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    11. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    12. 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).
    13. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    14. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    15. Verteramo Chiu, Leslie J. & Turvey, Calum G., 2015. "Perception and Action in a Conflict Zone: a Study of Rural Economy and Rural Life amidst Narcos in Northeastern Mexico," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205447, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Myoungsoon You & Youngkee Ju, 2020. "The Outrage Effect of Personal Stake, Familiarity, Effects on Children, and Fairness on Climate Change Risk Perception Moderated by Political Orientation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    18. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    19. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    20. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0219066. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.