IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v65y2014icp57-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing

Author

Listed:
  • Boudet, Hilary
  • Clarke, Christopher
  • Bugden, Dylan
  • Maibach, Edward
  • Roser-Renouf, Connie
  • Leiserowitz, Anthony

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:65:y:2014:i:c:p:57-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513010392
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    2. Swofford, Jeffrey & Slattery, Michael, 2010. "Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2508-2519, May.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:81:y:1987:i:02:p:383-404_19 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Susanne Rippl, 2002. "Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 147-165, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Richard Krannich, 2012. "Social change in natural resource-based rural communities: the evolution of sociological research and knowledge as influenced by William R. Freudenburg," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 2(1), pages 18-27, March.
    7. Klick, Holly & Smith, Eric R.A.N., 2010. "Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1585-1591.
    8. Charles Davis & Katherine Hoffer, 2012. "Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(3), pages 221-241, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:65:y:2014:i:c:p:57-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.