Explaining public preferences for high voltage pylon designs: An empirical study of perceived fit in a rural landscape

Abstract

 The UK Government held a design competition for high voltage powerlines in 2011  We examine public preferences for conventional and alternative pylon designs  The winning design in the competition was the most preferred  But undergrounding is a more acceptable mitigation measure than alternative designs  This highlights the need for public discussion of different models of power supply *Highlights (for review) 1 ABSTRACTIn many countries, electricity transmission networks are being upgraded and developed arising from policies aiming to decarbonise energy systems.However, new power lines are often controversial, due to their perceived negative impacts on rural landscapes. Despite the fact that visual impacts are an important element of public objections, to date, little research has analysed public preferences for alternative pylon designs, as well as investigating the social and psychological factors that might explain such preferences. This paper sought to address this gap, informed by research on public acceptance of renewable energy technologies, using a survey conducted with a representative sample of UK adults (n = 1519). The findings indicate that the 'T-pylon' design, winner of a recent competition, was most strongly preferred and the one most perceived to fit with a rural landscape, by comparison to the conventional 'A frame' design and a 'Totem' design shortlisted in the competition. Linear regression analyses indicated three factors that explained perceived fit, regardless of the designs: lower levels of educational attainment, positive general attitudes towards transmission lines and higher levels of trust in National Grid were associated with positive perceptions of fit of the pylons in a rural landscape. Finally, findings concerning public support for diverse mitigation measures indicated that the use of alternative designs was less supported than burying new powerlines underground and routing pylons away from homes and schools. The implications of these results for more sustainable grid networks are discussed.

Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: A comparative survey

“…Similar concerns arise in the case of high voltage power lines, albeit derived from a smaller number of research studies [4,7,9,22,23].…”

“…We selected these countries on the basis of three criteria regarding investment, governance and controversy: they have significant plans for upgrading existing grids and constructing new transmission power lines [1][2][3]; they possess interesting differences in terms of grid governance (see below) [27]; and Norway and the UK (but not Sweden) have had recent, severe conflicts over the siting of HVPL. In Sweden and in the UK the need for new grids has been strongly linked to the development of low carbon energy technologies, whereas in Norway, need arguments have focused more on security of supply [22,27]. Public responses to transmission lines were empirically investigated in the three selected countries, through considering some key factors relevant for understanding acceptance or opposition, notably issues of trust, familiarity and distinctions between general and local acceptance.…”

Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and the UK

“…Devine-Wright and Batel, 2013;Aas et al 2014). Some studies have indicated that measures for early involvement and engagement are highly appreciated by the public (Cotton and Devine-Wright 2011;Schweizer-Ries 2010).…”

The role of (de-)essentialisation within siting conflicts: An interdisciplinary approach

“…However, while at a general level the public tends to support renewable energy, when specific infrastructures are to be deployed, opposition to them and associated technologies, such as high voltage power lines (hereafter referred to simply as 'power lines'), is often found, namely from the local communities living nearby (Toke, 2005;Devine-Wright & Batel 2013).…”