IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v113y2018icp721-730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy

Author

Listed:
  • Howell, Rachel A.

Abstract

This paper discusses a survey of public opinions on hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) for shale gas, conducted with a representative sample of 1745 British adults. Unusually, it examines beliefs about positive and negative statements about fracking as well as support/opposition. A majority of respondents correctly answered an initial question testing basic knowledge of shale gas extraction. More respondents supported fracking in Britain (36%) than opposed it (32%) but only 22% supported fracking locally, while 45% were opposed. Respondents were more united in negative beliefs than positive beliefs about fracking. More knowledgeable participants held more polarised views and were significantly more likely than others to agree with negative statements and to oppose fracking in their local area. More respondents disagreed than agreed that it is possible to compensate for fracking risks by payments to local communities. Policy implications include: increasing public knowledge about fracking will not necessarily lead to more positive beliefs and support regarding shale gas developments; promoting alleged economic benefits of shale gas is not enough to ensure support; engaging in genuinely inclusive participatory decision-making may be more likely to increase support than offering payments to communities; alternatively, developing more renewable energy capacity promises to be more popular than fracking.

Suggested Citation

  • Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:721-730
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517308078
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.061?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kinnaman, Thomas C., 2011. "The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1243-1249, May.
    2. Peter Jones & David Hillier & Daphne Comfort, 2015. "The contested future of fracking for shale gas in the UK: risk, reputation and regulation," World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(4), pages 377-390.
    3. Clarke, Christopher E. & Hart, Philip S. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Stedman, Richard C., 2015. "Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-140.
    4. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    5. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    6. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    7. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    8. Measham, Thomas & Fleming, David & Schandl, Heinz, 2015. "A Conceptual Model of the Socioeconomic Impacts of Unconventional Fossil Fuel Extraction," MPRA Paper 68523, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Nov 2015.
    9. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    10. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Creed Tumlison & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural Values, Trust, and Benefit‐Risk Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Elites and the General Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, March.
    2. Elijah Acquah-Andoh & Augustine O. Ifelebuegu & Stephen C. Theophilus, 2019. "Brexit and UK Energy Security: Perspectives from Unconventional Gas Investment and the Effects of Shale Gas on UK Energy Prices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Marcos-Martinez, Raymundo & Measham, Thomas G. & Fleming-Muñoz, David A., 2019. "Economic impacts of early unconventional gas mining: Lessons from the coal seam gas industry in New South Wales, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 338-346.
    4. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    5. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    6. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Sibo Chen, 2020. "Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    8. Frances Drake, 2018. "Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    2. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Howell, Emily L. & Li, Nan & Akin, Heather & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Xenos, Michael A. & Brossard, Dominique, 2017. "How do U.S. state residents form opinions about ‘fracking’ in social contexts? A multilevel analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 345-355.
    5. Grecu, Eugenia & Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela & Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu, 2018. "The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 691-700.
    6. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2018. "Local residents' risk perceptions in response to shale gas exploitation: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 123-134.
    7. Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will, 2020. "Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Arnold, Gwen & Farrer, Benjamin & Holahan, Robert, 2018. "How do landowners learn about high-volume hydraulic fracturing? A survey of Eastern Ohio landowners in active or proposed drilling units," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 455-464.
    10. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    12. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    13. Frances Drake, 2018. "Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    14. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    15. Malin, Stephanie A. & Mayer, Adam & Crooks, James L. & McKenzie, Lisa & Peel, Jennifer L. & Adgate, John L., 2019. "Putting on partisan glasses: Political identity, quality of life, and oil and gas production in Colorado," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 738-748.
    16. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    17. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    18. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    19. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    20. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:721-730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.