A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local ‘gap’ in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures

Abstract

A national-local ‘gap’ is often used as the starting point for analyses of public responses to large scale energy infrastructures. We critique three assumptions found in that literature: the public's positive attitudes, without further examining other type of perceptions at a national level; that local perceptions are best examined through a siting rather than place-based approach; that a gap exists between national and local responses, despite a non-correspondence in how these are examined. Survey research conducted at national and local levels about electricity transmission lines in the UK confirm these criticisms. Results do not support a gap between national and local levels; instead, both differences and similarities were found. Results show the value of adopting a place-based approach and the role of surveys to inform policy making are discussed.

Keywords:

• large-scale energy infrastructures
• transmission lines
• national-local ‘gap’
• public responses
• community acceptance

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Research Council of Norway (SusGrid – Grant No. 207774) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (FlexNet: EP/EO4011X/1). The authors would also like to acknowledge the beneficial comments and advice of their colleagues at the Environment and Sustainability Research Group, Geography, University of Exeter, regarding previous versions of this paper, as well as the helpful comments of the three anonymous reviewers that commented on it. Thanks are also due to colleagues from the SusGrid project, specifically Audun Ruud and Oystein Aas, and the participants in the research, for their contributions to this paper.

Notes

1. Even if nuclear power has (again) started to attract less support after the Fukushima accident in March 2011 (see Pidgeon and Demski 2012).

2. Underline and italics added by the authors.

3. This includes as much places which are or will be physically ‘close’ to the infrastructure, as those which can be physically more distant but are still interested in and feel affected by the project. Or, in other words, also includes the consideration of ‘communities of interest’ (see Bristow, Cowell and Munday 2012) within, across and beyond communities of locality.

4. Concurrently with what Bell, Gray, and Haggett (2005) proposed, we might be seen as discussing to what extent a ‘gap’ – either individual or social – exists at all, or if it is instead the result of the way in which research usually examines people's responses to energy infrastructures (e.g. by not examining qualifiers to people's support to energy technologies in opinion polls; Bell, Gray, and Haggett 2005).

5. Despite the fact that nuclear power and renewable energy sources might be considered different taking into account public's responses to them (Pidgeon and Demski 2012), the analyses of the Hinkley Point C and Mid Wales case studies based on secondary data and namely on the websites from protest groups (e.g. Nailsea Against Pylons 2013; Montgomeryshire Against Pylons 2013) suggest that positions regarding the high voltage power lines are to a large extent independent from positions regarding the energy generation infrastructures they are needed to connect with. Moreover, previous studies (see Devine-Wright and Batel 2013) have suggested that the transport of electricity from renewable energy sources is not a much supported mitigation measure of the impact of high voltage power lines.

6. OFGEM is the main regulatory institution for electricity and gas markets in Great Britain.

7. It should be noted that in the results section we will often, for the sake of the arguments we are aiming to empirically support, present the local data twice: sometimes through an aggregated, case-study approach (presenting data for HPC project and MW project) and other times through a place-based, disaggregated approach (presenting data for Nailsea, Yatton, Shrewsbury and Welshpool separately).

8. Even if some differences were also found between national and local scales for the perceived involvement of local politicians, Ofgem, and outdoor recreational organisations – see Appendix Figure 1A.

9. Due to space constraints, only the five most expected local impacts, calculated through the% of ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ answers, are reported here. However, we report descriptive data for all the other local impacts in the Appendices.

10. The fourth most expected local impact is, for both the UK and Mid Wales samples, “Provide jobs in construction and maintenance of power lines” (with 54.4% and 64.3% of, respectively); and for the HPC sample, “Impact negatively on local wildlife” (69.2%).