## 1 Introduction and Related Works
Since the same subjectivity lies in the citizen, the second trend of potential mitigation actions comes from the direct involvement of citizens through participatory workshops and consultation as well as design contests in the case of new installations. The use of deliberative focus group methods leads to an exploration of the citizens' perceptions of environmental and social impacts, risks, governance arrangements, and technology choices [4]. Again, the citizens' involvement in the decision makingprocess from an early stage of design can be considered as a mitigation measure that would lead to greater levels of acceptability, taking into account the characteristics, concerns, needs and expectations of the specific communities to be affected [9]. Similarly, design contests enhance the psychological perception of direct participation in the design process. In addition, they aim to identify new ideas by crowdsourcing, even if the design solutions are usually stopped at the conceptual phase [10] and not further developed into real structures. The main reason is the citizens' lack of technical knowledge necessary to take a strategic viewpoint on transmission system development [4], as well as similar limitations in the fields of regulatory, safety, lack of feasibility, etc. However, a few solutions coming from the design contests are developed into real structures and put in place in some European countries. In this case, actually, the citizens only judged and selected the best design among the works proposed by professionals and architectural firms. The winning designs present attractive and sinuous shapes, different from the traditional ones. The preferences for these alternative pylon designs are studied in [9]: this study compares the \"T-pylon\" [11], designed by the Danish architect [PERSON] and put in place in 2015 in the UK (Figure 1a) with two other different designs. One of the main results of the survey highlights that traditional pylon design is, typically, perceived as having a negative visual impact, \"which probably stems from its historical associations as being big or huge, monstrous, ugly and as eyesores\" [9]. Similarly, a direct comparison between the conventional lattice structure and new pylon designs (single pole with arms, one pole, double pole with arms, V-pole, windmill, etc.) is proposed in [2; 12]. The preferences of people for alternative pylon designs is mainly correlated to their negative perception of the conventional structure (reticular structure or truss), generally associated with the impact of the infrastructure. In particular, new pylons designs were developed and compared to the existing ones (i.e., lattice structures) by carrying out a survey among residents in the area of installation [2]. After asking about their preferences about the pylon designs, survey respondents were asked if they would pay for changing the existing pylons with their preferred one. The results of this study were also reanalyzed in [13], highlighting that (1) the majority of respondents had no intentions to pay for a new pylon design and, moreover, (2) they thought there was no difference between maintaining and replacing the current design. However, other examples of already installed real pylons with alternative designs are the \"Rosental pylon\", designed by Hugh Dutton Associes and architect [PERSON] and put in place in 2014 in Italy (Figure 1b), and the \"Foster pylon\" [14] designed by architect Sir [PERSON] (Foster+Partners) and put in place in 2009 in Italy (Figure 1c). Figure 1: Examples of already installed pylons with alternative designs: (**a**) T-pylon, installed in the UK [15]; (**b**) Rosental pylon, installed in Italy by Italian energy company Terna SpA [16]; (**c**) Foster pylon, installed in Italy by Terna SpA (Photo credits: Terna SpA) [17]. All these new types of installed pylons (Figure 1) aim to enhance the visual impact quality, even if they do not completely adopt the suggested design guidelines.