IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v120y2018icp666-674.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas

Author

Listed:
  • Pierce, Jonathan J.
  • Boudet, Hilary
  • Zanocco, Chad
  • Hillyard, Megan

Abstract

The U.S. is now the global leader in natural gas production. The federal government is changing policies and priorities to expand natural gas export to foreign energy markets. Such an expansion requires increased pipeline capacity and the development of export terminals for shipping. While natural gas export is a burgeoning energy and environmental issue, we know little about what influences public support/opposition for the practice. Such information is vital to all levels of government and stakeholders. Using a national online survey sample (n = 1042), we examine what factors influence public support/opposition. Results of regression analysis indicate that supporters tend to be male, hold a bachelor's degree or higher, wealthier, politically conservative, and reference affective images of the economy, energy, and trade. In contrast, opponents tend to be women, politically liberal, and reference affective images related to keeping natural gas in the U.S., the environment, and hydraulic fracturing. Based on these findings, we discuss implications for energy policy, public communication about this issue, and future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:120:y:2018:i:c:p:666-674
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518303835
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.066?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. 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.
    2. Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2005. "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1433-1442, December.
    3. Charles Davis, 2012. "The Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 177-191, March.
    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. Barry G. Rabe & Christopher Borick, 2013. "Conventional Politics for Unconventional Drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania's Early Move into Fracking Policy Development," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(3), pages 321-340, May.
    6. David Koranyi, 2016. "The strategic role of the US in European energy security," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 1-2, October.
    7. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    8. Richard Williams, 2006. "Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(1), pages 58-82, March.
    9. Gravelle, Timothy B. & Lachapelle, Erick, 2015. "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-108.
    10. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    11. Tanya Heikkila & Jonathan J. Pierce & Samuel Gallaher & Jennifer Kagan & Deserai A. Crow & Christopher M. Weible, 2014. "Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(2), pages 65-87, March.
    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. Ana-Maria Bliuc & Craig McGarty & Emma F. Thomas & Girish Lala & Mariette Berndsen & RoseAnne Misajon, 2015. "Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 226-229, March.
    14. S. Michelle Driedger, 2007. "Risk and the Media: A Comparison of Print and Televised News Stories of a Canadian Drinking Water Risk Event," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 775-786, June.
    15. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    16. Charles Davis & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2014. "Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. 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.
    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. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    2. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(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. 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. 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).
    3. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Adam Mayer, 2018. "Community economic identity and colliding treadmills in oil and gas governance," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, March.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    8. Mayer, Adam, 2017. "Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-459.
    9. 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.
    10. Fisk, Jonathan M. & Good, A.J., 2019. "Information booms and busts: Examining oil and gas disclosure policies across the states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 374-381.
    11. 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.
    12. Eugene Y. Chan & Jack Lin, 2022. "Political ideology and psychological reactance: how serious should climate change be?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-22, May.
    13. Hannibal, Bryce & Portney, Kent, 2020. "The impact of water scarcity on support for hydraulic fracturing regulation: A water-energy nexus study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    14. Edwards, Michelle L., 2018. "Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 348-357.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    19. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    20. 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.

    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:120:y:2018:i:c:p:666-674. 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.