IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v58y2013icp228-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity

Author

Listed:
  • Kriesky, J.
  • Goldstein, B.D.
  • Zell, K.
  • Beach, S.

Abstract

The pace of development of shale gas plays varies greatly among US states and globally. Through analysis of telephone survey responses, we explore support for natural gas drilling in residents of Washington County (WC), PA (n=502) vs. residents of Allegheny County (AC), PA (n=799). WC has had intense Marcellus Shale (MS) drilling activity, in comparison to adjacent AC, which has had little drilling activity. WC residents are marginally more supportive of MS drilling than are AC residents (p=0.0768). Residents of WC are more likely to perceive MS as an economic opportunity than are AC residents (p=0.0015); to be in a family that has signed a MS lease (p<0.0001); to follow the MS issue closely (p=0.0003); to get MS information from neighbors, friends, and relatives (p<0.0001); and are marginally less likely to perceive MS as an environmental threat (p=0.1090). WC leaseholders are significantly more supportive of MS drilling than WC non-leaseholders and AC non-leaseholders (p=0.0024). Mediation analyses show that county-based differences in support of MS drilling are due to WC residents seeing more of an economic opportunity in the MS and their greater likelihood of having a family-held lease.

Suggested Citation

  • Kriesky, J. & Goldstein, B.D. & Zell, K. & Beach, S., 2013. "Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 228-236.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:58:y:2013:i:c:p:228-236
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001596
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.005?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. Jacquet, Jeffrey B., 2012. "Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 677-688.
    2. Rahm, Dianne, 2011. "Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2974-2981, May.
    3. Finkel, M.L. & Law, A., 2011. "The rush to drill for natural gas: A public health cautionary tale," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(5), pages 784-785.
    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. Hilary S. Boudet & Chad M. Zanocco & Peter D. Howe & Christopher E. Clarke, 2018. "The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1871-1890, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Sean Lonnquist & Deborah Gallagher, 2021. "Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 326-346, May.
    4. Walsh, Kathryn Bills & Haggerty, Julia H., 2020. "Social license to operate during Wyoming's coalbed methane boom: Implications of private participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    7. Olson-Hazboun, Shawn K. & Howe, Peter D. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2018. "The influence of extractive activities on public support for renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 117-126.
    8. Ilia Murtazashvili & Ennio E. Piano, 2019. "Governance of shale gas development: Insights from the Bloomington school of institutional analysis," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 159-179, June.
    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. Luke, Hanabeth, 2017. "Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: Proposing a diamond model of social license to operate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 266-280.
    11. Bistline, John E., 2014. "Natural gas, uncertainty, and climate policy in the US electric power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 433-442.
    12. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    13. McCrea, Dr Rod & Walton, Dr Andrea & Jeanneret, Ms Talia, 2020. "An opportunity to say no: Comparing local community attitudes toward onshore unconventional gas development in pre-approval and operational phases," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    16. 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).
    17. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena & Braga, Ana Cristina, 2018. "Modelling perception and attitudes towards renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 688-697.

    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. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    2. Joshua C. Hall & Christopher Shultz & E. Frank Stephenson, 2018. "The political economy of local fracking bans," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 42(2), pages 397-408, April.
    3. Jessica A. Crowe, 2019. "The impact of shale development on crop farmers: how the size and location of farms matter," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 17-33, March.
    4. Centner, Terence J., 2013. "Oversight of shale gas production in the United States and the disclosure of toxic substances," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 233-240.
    5. Lenhard, L.G. & Andersen, S.M. & Coimbra-Araújo, C.H., 2018. "Energy-Environmental Implications Of Shale Gas Exploration In Paraná Hydrological Basin, Brazil," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 56-69.
    6. Corey Young, 2023. "Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Governing Unconventional Natural Gas at the Local Level in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, March.
    7. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi & Jha, Awadhesh N. & Rogers, Howard, 2014. "Natural gas from shale formation – The evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-28.
    8. 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.
    9. Beth Kinne & Michael Finewood & David Yoxtheimer, 2014. "Making critical connections through interdisciplinary analysis: exploring the impacts of Marcellus shale development," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, March.
    10. Felix N. Fernando & Dennis R. Cooley, 2016. "An Oil Boom’s Effect on Quality of Life (QoL): Lessons from Western North Dakota," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 11(4), pages 1083-1115, December.
    11. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    12. Timothy W. Kelsey & Mark D. Partridge & Nancy E. White, 2016. "Unconventional Gas and Oil Development in the United States: Economic Experience and Policy Issues," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 191-214.
    13. Xu, Shang & Allen Klaiber, H., 2019. "The impact of new natural gas pipelines on emissions and fuel consumption in China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 49-62.
    14. Zhou, Junping & Tian, Shifeng & Zhou, Lei & Xian, Xuefu & Yang, Kang & Jiang, Yongdong & Zhang, Chengpeng & Guo, Yaowen, 2020. "Experimental investigation on the influence of sub- and super-critical CO2 saturation time on the permeability of fractured shale," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. John C. Pierce & Rachel M. Krause & Sarah L. Hofmeyer & Bonnie J. Johnson, 2021. "Explanations for Wind Turbine Installations: Local and Global Environmental Concerns in the Central Corridor of the United States?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    16. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    17. Hitaj, Claudia & Weber, Jeremy G. & Hopkins, Jeffrey W. & Erickson, Kenneth W., 2018. "Ownership of Oil and Gas Rights and Farm Sector Income and Wealth," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274316, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Fry, Matthew, 2013. "Urban gas drilling and distance ordinances in the Texas Barnett Shale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 79-89.
    19. Timmins, Christopher & Vissing, Ashley, 2022. "Environmental justice and Coasian bargaining: The role of race, ethnicity, and income in lease negotiations for shale gas," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    20. 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.

    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:58:y:2013:i:c:p:228-236. 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.