Background: This article reports on a survey of residents in two northern, rural counties in Michigan’s Western Upper Peninsula. The survey was part of a larger community-engaged research project supporting procedural, distributional, and recognition justice, and it was designed to explore reported experiences of energy burdens, energy service access needs, and public health concerns. Methods: A total of 176 residents were surveyed in two neighboring counties, one of which hosts a bioenergy facility associated with local concerns regarding air pollution and health impacts. Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods. Results: A large proportion of the respondents (almost 25% across the full sample) reported experiencing severe energy burdens, which is particularly concerning given the sample’s overrepresentation of higher-income households relative to county populations. Respondents also reported clear energy service needs. Residents in the county hosting the bioenergy facility reported higher energy burdens, greater perceived impacts from air pollution, and were more likely to identify industrial sources and power plants as causes of local air pollution. Higher-income residents in that county were also more likely to report the combination of air pollution concern, perceived health impacts, and related symptoms. Discussion: Findings highlight dynamics of vulnerability and privilege that may represent unique features of rural community residents’ experiences of energy injustice. Notably, higher-income residents near the bioenergy facility were more likely to recognize and report air pollution health impacts than lower-income residents, a pattern that warrants further attention in energy social science and environmental justice research. Conclusions: Findings suggest an opportunity for future inquiry into the perceptual dimensions of privilege and vulnerability in rural communities hosting energy infrastructure, where material and environmental burdens as well as perception and awareness may not be equitably distributed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milanzi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: