IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2308-d332984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Tracy

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder 80309, CO, USA)

  • Amy Javernick-Will

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder 80309, CO, USA)

Abstract

The central United States has seen an increase in earthquakes in recent years, spurring academics to research this new hazard and communicate their findings to the public—that the earthquakes are human-induced and tied to activities associated with oil and gas development. However, individuals receive information from a variety of sources and accept or reject information based on how credible they view the information source. Within this study, we administered and analyzed a household survey to understand what sources individuals view as credible regarding induced seismicity and oil and gas development, and what factors predict this perceived source credibility. We found that academics were viewed as the most credible source, and elected officials were viewed as the least credible source. Rural respondents viewed sources, including academics, as less credible than their urban counterparts. Those who experienced more negative impacts of induced seismicity viewed all sources as less credible than did individuals who have not experienced such adverse impacts. These findings are important to consider when developing outreach and communication campaigns around sustainability issues, as the public will view certain sources, particularly academics, as more credible than the sources that traditionally create and enact policy, such as elected officials and government agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will, 2020. "Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2308-:d:332984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2308/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2308/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mingyang Zhang & Chao Chen & Wuyang Hu & Lijun Chen & Jintao Zhan, 2016. "Influence of Source Credibility on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:407-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    8. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    9. Thomson, Harriet & Snell, Carolyn, 2013. "Quantifying the prevalence of fuel poverty across the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 563-572.
    10. Ron Cheung & Daniel Wetherell & Stephan D. Whitaker, 2016. "Earthquakes and House Prices: Evidence from Oklahoma," Working Papers (Old Series) 1631, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    11. Honaker, James & King, Gary & Blackwell, Matthew, 2011. "Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i07).
    12. Joel Sobel, 1985. "A Theory of Credibility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(4), pages 557-573.
    13. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    14. Cheung, Ron & Wetherell, Daniel & Whitaker, Stephan, 2018. "Induced earthquakes and housing markets: Evidence from Oklahoma," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 153-166.
    15. Paul R. Brewer & Kimberly Gross & Sean Aday & Lars Willnat, 2004. "International Trust and Public Opinion About World Affairs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 93-109, January.
    16. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Ulrich Heink & Elisabeth Marquard & Katja Heubach & Kurt Jax & Carolin Kugel & Carsten Neßhöver & Rosmarie K. Neumann & Axel Paulsch & Sebastian Tilch & Johannes Timaeus & Marie Vandewalle, 2015. "Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 676-689.
    19. Melanie M. Bakema & Constanza Parra & Philip McCann, 2018. "Analyzing the Social Lead-Up to a Human-Induced Disaster: The Gas Extraction-Earthquake Nexus in Groningen, The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    20. 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)

    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. Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will & Abbie Liel, 2022. "Factors influencing public beliefs regarding the cause of induced earthquakes," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(1), pages 183-204, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Nicholas Apergis & Sayantan Ghosh Dastidar & Ghulam Mustafa, 2021. "Fracking and Asset Prices: The Role of Health Indicators for House Prices Across Oklahoma’s Counties," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 583-602, April.
    4. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Giuliano Masiero & Michael Santarossa, 2020. "Earthquakes, grants, and public expenditure: How municipalities respond to natural disasters," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 481-516, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    11. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    12. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    13. 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).
    14. Mark W. Neff & Zander Albertson, 2020. "Does higher education prepare students to bridge divides in today’s democracy?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 196-204, June.
    15. Nicholas Janusch & Stephan Kroll & Christopher Goemans & Todd L. Cherry & Steffen Kallbekken, 2021. "Learning to accept welfare-enhancing policies: an experimental investigation of congestion pricing," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 59-86, March.
    16. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Joanna K. Huxster & Matthew H. Slater & Asheley R. Landrum, 2021. "The Development and Validation of the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI): An Instrument to Measure Grasp of the Social-Institutional Aspects of Science," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    19. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    20. Isoaho, Karoliina & Karhunmaa, Kamilla, 2019. "A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 930-942.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2308-:d:332984. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.