Pitfalls when Placing Electricity Pylons - The Influence of Age on Acceptance

  • Barbara S. ZaunbrecherEmail author
  • Katrin Arning
  • Baris Özalay
  • Hendrik Natemeyer
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9193)


The increasing penetration of renewable energies influences and changes the transmission task of electricity in Germany. However, the planning and construction of new lines is met with resistance from the public. To address public concerns adequately, a tailored information and communication concept is needed, for which knowledge about acceptance-relevant factors for different user groups is indispensable. In this paper we explore acceptance-relevant attributes in the context of electricity pylons contrasting attitudes of older and younger persons. Results of a conjoint study indicate that both age groups basically have comparable acceptance levels, but younger persons were found to be more sensitive with regard to distance of the pylon and possible health effects. Additionally, acceptance patterns similar to those for cell tower location were found, which implies that the analyzed attributes are not only stable across demographic groups but also across technologies.


Energy infrastructure Technology acceptance Electricity pylons User diversity Renewable energies Conjoint analysis 



Thanks to Clara Erner, Lino Kolb and Chantal Lidynia for research support. This work was funded by the Excellence Initiative of German federal and state government (Project “Urban Future Outline”).


  1. 1.
    Poortinga, W., Cox, P., Pidgeon, N.F.: The perceived health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines: a comparative multilevel approach. Risk Anal. 28, 235–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jay, S.: Pylons in the back yard: local planning and perceived risks to health. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 25, 423–438 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, G., Day, B., Mourato, S., Palmer, C.: Amenity or eyesore? negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11, 203–208 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devine-Wright, P., Batel, S.: Explaining public preferences for high voltage pylon designs: an empirical study of perceived fit in a rural landscape. Land Use Policy 31, 640–649 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neukirch, M.: Konflikte um den Ausbau der Stromnetze [Conflicts about the grid expansion]. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Organisations- und Innovationsforschung (SOI) [Contributions to Organization and Innovation Research from Stuttgart]. Discussion Paper 2014-01 (1/2014), ISSN 2191-4990 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cotton, M., Devine-Wright, P.: Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56, 1225–1245 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Technical expertise and its influence on the acceptance of future medical technologies: what is influencing what to which extent? In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 513–529. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Different perspectives on technology acceptance: the role of technology type and age. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 20–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zaunbrecher, B.S., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: The willingness to adopt technologies: a cross-sectional study on the influence of technical self-efficacy on acceptance. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2014, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8512, pp. 764–775. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Health concerns vs. mobile data needs: conjoint measurement of preferences for mobile communication network scenarios. Int. J Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 20(5), 1359–1384 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitzner, T.L., Boron, J.B., Fausset, C.B., Adams, A.E., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Dijkstra, K., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., Sharit, J.: Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 1710–1721 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Which factors form older adults’ acceptance of mobile information and communication technologies? In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 81–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Devine-Wright, P.: Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. Manch. Sch. Environ. Dev. Univ. Manch (2007).
  15. 15.
    Ek, K.: Public and private attitudes towards green electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33, 1677–1689 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zarnikau, J.: Consumer demand for green power and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 31, 1661–1672 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Locus of control when interacting with technology]. Rep. Psychol. 24, 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara S. Zaunbrecher
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katrin Arning
    • 1
  • Baris Özalay
    • 2
  • Hendrik Natemeyer
    • 2
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for High Voltage Technology (IFHT)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations