Holly Caggiano’s research while affiliated with University of British Columbia and other places

Rapidly building utility-scale energy infrastructure requires not only public support but also political will across levels of government. Here we use a conjoint experiment to assess preferences for large-scale energy projects among residents and local elected officials in Pennsylvania—a key transition state with high solar potential where siting authority rests at the local level. We find that residents prefer solar to other energy projects, and job creation and cooperative community ownership are associated with increased support. Public and elected official support decreases when projects are owned by foreign companies. We find limited partisan differences in preferences, suggesting a path towards bipartisan support for such projects. Elected officials misperceive their constituents’ preferences, underestimating support for renewable energy and the importance of job creation. As local officials are key decision-makers regarding infrastructure development, their preferences and perceptions of constituents’ preferences may dictate which energy projects are approved and what community benefits they deliver.

Rapidly building utility-scale energy infrastructure requires not only public support, but also political will across levels of government. This research explores determinants of opposition and support for large-scale energy projects among residents and local elected officials in Pennsylvania—a key transition state due its high solar potential, and where siting authority rests at the local level. This work extends prior research by using a conjoint to compare many project characteristics simultaneously, expanding the set of characteristics typically considered, sampling both the public and elected officials in a key transition state, and assessing the accuracy of public officials’ perceptions of their constituents. Using a conjoint experiment, we assess support for different characteristics of energy projects among a demographically representative sample of residents (n = 894) and a sample of local elected officials (n = 206). Key findings include that creation of permanent, union-wage jobs and cooperative community ownership increases support for energy projects and that solar projects are preferred over wind, nuclear, and natural gas power plants with carbon capture and storage. Support among both the public and local elected officials is lower when projects are owned by foreign companies. Strikingly, we find limited partisan differences in preferences for large scale renewable energy project characteristics, suggesting a promising path towards building bipartisan support for such projects. We also find, however, that local elected officials misperceive the preferences of their constituents, underestimating support for renewable energy and the importance of job creation. Given the role of local elected officials as key decision-makers regarding energy infrastructure development, their preferences and how they perceive their constituents’ preferences may dictate what types of energy projects are approved and what benefits they deliver to local communities.

While cities in the United States play an active role developing and implementing climate policy, urban centers are often sites of socio-spatial inequity. Thus, we explore how cities grapple with these inequities in their Climate Action Plans (CAPs). While CAPs can empower cities to engage in equitable planning practices that prioritize marginalized communities, little empirical research examines how equity goals are measured and evaluated. We find that among large U.S. cities with CAPs, less than one third include measurable indicators to evaluate progress towards achieving equity goals. Across climate adaptation and mitigation planning, nineteen cities consider equity goals as they relate to ten thematic areas, six outcomes, and five dimensions of equity. We suggest ways forward for cities to develop, implement, and measure a diverse and holistic set of equity indicators to use in their climate planning efforts and beyond.

Addressing many social challenges requires both structural and behavioral change. The binary of an i- and s-frame obscures how behavioral science can help foster bottom-up collective action. Adopting a community-frame perspective moves toward a more integrative view of how social change emerges, and how it might be promoted by policymakers and publics in service of addressing challenges like climate change.

While cities in the United States play an active role developing and implementing climate policy, urban centers are often sites of socio-spatial inequity. Thus, we explore how cities grapple with these inequities in their Climate Action Plans (CAPs). While CAPs can empower cities to address Sustainable Development Goals and engage in equitable planning practices that prioritize marginalized communities, little empirical research examines how equity goals are measured and evaluated. We find that among large U.S. cities with CAPs, less than one third include measurable indicators to evaluate progress towards achieving equity goals. Across climate adaptation and mitigation planning, nineteen cities consider equity goals as they relate to ten thematic areas, outcomes, and five dimensions of equity. We suggest ways forward for cities to develop, implement, and measure a diverse and holistic set of equity indicators to use in their climate planning efforts and beyond.