Risk perceptions and the success of siting local undesirable facilities

Over the next several years more energy facilities will be required to meet projected energy demand. In some cases, the sitting of such facilities will generate significant individual and community opposition even after utility or industry representatives offer expert analysis that little or no public risk from a facility exists. In other cases, the host community will welcome and support a new facility. After considering two recent cases with very different outcomes, this paper explores methods to understand individual perceptions and reactions to proposed energy facilities. First, risk perception measures are used to model (theoretically and empirically) subjects' willingness-to-pay to prevent facilities is modeled as a function of perceived risk. Individual preferences between coal and natural gas are further explored in relation to differences in perceived impacts based on fuel choice. Quantitative information on individual perceptions of the environmental, health, aesthetic, and economic risks associated with locally sited, fossil fuel electric power facilities is fathered from a contingent valuation survey incorporating psychometric scales. Combining methods from psychology and economics. we show that obtaining the value of preferences can assist in siting decisions and risk communication.