“Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing

The recent push to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas both in the U.S. and abroad via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has generated a great deal of controversy. Effectively engaging stakeholders and setting appropriate policies requires insights into current public perceptions of this issue. Using a nationally representative U.S. sample (N=1061), we examine public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing including: “top of mind” associations; familiarity with the issue; levels of support/opposition; and predictors of such judgments. Similar to findings on other emerging technologies, our results suggest limited familiarity with the process and its potential impacts and considerable uncertainty about whether to support it. Multiple regression analysis (r2=.49) finds that women, those holding egalitarian worldviews, those who read newspapers more than once a week, those more familiar with hydraulic fracturing, and those who associate the process with environmental impacts are more likely to oppose fracking. In contrast, people more likely to support fracking tend to be older, hold a bachelor's degree or higher, politically conservative, watch TV news more than once a week, and associate the process with positive economic or energy supply outcomes. Based on these findings, we discuss recommendations for future research, risk communication, and energy policy.

[1]  C. Davis,et al.  Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking , 2012 .

[2]  S. Keeter,et al.  What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters , 1996 .

[3]  Pooya Soltantabar Annual Energy Outlook , 2015 .

[4]  Eric R. A. N. Smith,et al.  Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States , 2010 .

[5]  R. Krannich Social change in natural resource-based rural communities: the evolution of sociological research and knowledge as influenced by William R. Freudenburg , 2012, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[6]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants , 2009 .

[7]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  The Role of Media and Deference to Scientific Authority in Cultivating Trust in Sources of Information about Emerging Technologies , 2012 .

[8]  Jeffrey Jacquet,et al.  Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania , 2012 .

[9]  Douglas W. Walser,et al.  Making Mature Shale Gas Plays Commercial: Process vs. Natural Parameters , 2007 .

[10]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[11]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Cross‐National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain , 2006 .

[12]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[14]  Natalie Jomini Stroud,et al.  Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure , 2008 .

[15]  A. Wildavsky,et al.  Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why? , 2016 .

[16]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception , 2007 .

[17]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[18]  Susan Hunter,et al.  Beyond NIMBY. Explaining Opposition to Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1995 .

[19]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[20]  D. Shaw,et al.  Agenda setting function of mass media , 1972 .

[21]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[22]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany , 2010, New Media Soc..

[23]  William L. Rosenberg Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[24]  W. Kempton,et al.  Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors , 2007 .

[25]  A. Daar,et al.  ‘Mind the gap’: science and ethics in nanotechnology , 2003, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[26]  Anthony A Leiserowitz,et al.  American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Risk, Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats , 1998 .

[28]  Gene L. Theodori,et al.  Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. , 2009 .

[29]  J. Niederdeppe Beyond Knowledge Gaps: Examining Socioeconomic Differences in Response to Cancer News , 2008 .

[30]  A. Leiserowitz Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values , 2006 .

[31]  Karl Dake Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk , 1992 .

[32]  William M. Kappel,et al.  Water Resources and Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale , 2009 .

[33]  S. Iyengar Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[34]  Simona L. Perry Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Addressing the Societal Costs of Unconventional Oil and Gas Exploration and Production: A Framework for Evaluating Short-Term, Future, and Cumulative Risks and Uncertainties of Hydrofracking , 2012 .

[35]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  THE PEOPLE AND THE PRESS , 1987 .

[36]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale , 2014, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[37]  Brooklynn J. Anderson,et al.  Local Leaders’ Perceptions of Energy Development in the Barnett Shale , 2009 .

[38]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[39]  M. Slattery,et al.  Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making , 2010 .

[40]  R. Krannich,et al.  The Boom-Bust-Recovery Cycle: Dynamics of Change in Community Satisfaction and Social Integration in Delta, Utah* , 2005 .

[41]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[42]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  Emerging Risk Communication Challenges Associated with Shale Gas Development , 2012, European Journal of Risk Regulation.

[43]  Timothy W. Kelsey,et al.  RESIDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL GAS IN THE MARCELLUS SHALE: A COMPARISON OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK CASES * , 2011 .

[44]  Maria Johansson,et al.  Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception , 2007 .

[45]  Eric R. A. N. Smith The Unchanging American Voter , 1989 .

[46]  Frank Spellman - Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process , 2012 .

[47]  D. Shaw,et al.  Managing Conflict In Facility Siting: an international comparison , 2005 .

[48]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[49]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[50]  N. Hultman,et al.  The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation , 2011 .

[51]  Leonard Ortolano,et al.  A Tale of Two Sitings: Contentious Politics in Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Siting in California , 2010 .

[52]  Ann E. Williams Media evolution and public understanding of climate science , 2011, Politics and the Life Sciences.

[53]  Mario Callegaro,et al.  Computing Response Metrics for Online Panels , 2008 .

[54]  E. Dobb The new oil landscape , 2013 .

[55]  M. Siegrist,et al.  The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[56]  Garfield County Health Consultation Public Health Implications of Ambient Air Exposures as Measured in Rural and Urban Oil & Gas Development Areas - an Analysis of 2008 Air Sampling Data , 2010 .

[57]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[58]  B. Rabe,et al.  Fracking for Natural Gas: Public Opinion on State Policy Options , 2011 .

[59]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[60]  Stanley Rothman,et al.  Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[61]  Clifford W. Scherer,et al.  Attaining a State of Informed Judgments: Toward a Dialectical Discourse on Risk , 1995 .

[62]  Robert Futrell,et al.  Framing Processes, Cognitive Liberation, and NIMBY Protest in the U.S. Chemical‐Weapons Disposal Conflict , 2003 .

[63]  S. Driedger,et al.  Risk and the Media: A Comparison of Print and Televised News Stories of a Canadian Drinking Water Risk Event , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[64]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes , 2012 .

[65]  Hilary Boudet,et al.  From NIMBY to NIABY: regional mobilization against liquefied natural gas in the United States , 2011 .

[66]  Sheldon Krimsky,et al.  Risk communication in the internet age: The rise of disorganized skepticism , 2007 .

[67]  R. Jackson,et al.  Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[68]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media , 2012, New Media Soc..

[69]  Karl Dake Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk , 1991 .

[70]  Richard C. Stedman,et al.  Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Marcellus Shale Gas Development and New Boomtown Research: Views of New York and Pennsylvania Residents , 2012 .

[71]  E. Nelson,et al.  Advanced Fracturing Fluids Improve Well Economics , 1995 .

[72]  J. Besley,et al.  Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology , 2010, Emerging health threats journal.

[73]  D A V I,et al.  Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale : Challenges and Potential Opportunities , 2010 .

[74]  Susanne Rippl Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement , 2002 .