IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v91y2016icp341-351.html

To drill or not to drill? An econometric analysis of US public opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Mukherjee, Deep
  • Rahman, Mohammad Arshad

Abstract

Offshore drilling in the United States (US) has been the subject of public and political discourse due to multiple reasons which include economic impact, energy security, and environmental hazard. Consequently, several polls have been conducted over time to gauge public attitude towards offshore drilling. Nevertheless, the economic literature on this issue is sparse. This paper contributes to the literature and analyzes support for offshore drilling based on demographic, economic, social, belief, and shock (e.g. spill) factors. The data is taken from ten nationwide surveys conducted before, during and after the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill and analyzed within the framework of discrete choice model. The results from an ordinal probit model demonstrate that age, annual household income, affiliation to Republican Party, and residence in oil-rich states positively affect the probability of strong support and reduce the probability of strong opposition for offshore drilling. In contrast, the female gender, higher education, association to Democratic Party, and environmental concern affect opinion in opposite direction. Marginal effects show that belief about environmental consequences of drilling has the highest impact on opinion. Binary probit model also yields a similar result and suggests that BP oil disaster resulted in a transient decrease in support for offshore drilling.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukherjee, Deep & Rahman, Mohammad Arshad, 2016. "To drill or not to drill? An econometric analysis of US public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 341-351.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:91:y:2016:i:c:p:341-351
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515302019
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.023?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    2. Grossman,Peter Z., 2013. "US Energy Policy and the Pursuit of Failure," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107005174, Enero-Abr.
    3. Cleveland, Cutler J. & Kaufmann, Robert K., 2003. "Oil supply and oil politics: Deja Vu all over again," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 485-489, May.
    4. Torgler, Benno & Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. "The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 536-552, August.
    5. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    6. Erdem, Cumhur & Sentürk, Ismail & Simsek, Türker, 2010. "Identifying the factors affecting the willingness to pay for fuel-efficient vehicles in Turkey: A case of hybrids," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3038-3043, June.
    7. Thomas Dietz & Linda Kalof & Paul C. Stern, 2002. "Gender, Values, and Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 353-364, March.
    8. Trostel, Philip A & Taylor, Grant A, 2001. "A Theory of Time Preference," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 379-395, July.
    9. Grossman,Peter Z., 2013. "US Energy Policy and the Pursuit of Failure," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521182188, Enero-Abr.
    10. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    11. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2010. "Attitudes towards offshore wind farms--The role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1297-1304, March.
    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. Soumen Ghosh, 2025. "What drives the ICT adoption in unorganized firms in India: An application of ordinal probit models," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 45(3), pages 1544-1553.
    2. 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.
    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.

    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. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., . "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49.
    2. Chorus, Caspar G. & Koetse, Mark J. & Hoen, Anco, 2013. "Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 901-908.
    3. Langer, Lissy & Huppmann, Daniel & Holz, Franziska, 2016. "Lifting the US crude oil export ban: A numerical partial equilibrium analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 258-266.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dahlgaard, Jens-Olav, 2012. "Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-46.
    5. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2018. "Risk Preferences and the Role of Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 305-328, April.
    6. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    7. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    8. Byun, Hyunsuk & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2017. "Analyzing Korean consumers’ latent preferences for electricity generation sources with a hierarchical Bayesian logit model in a discrete choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 294-302.
    9. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Kulati, Ellam & Myck, Michał & Pasini, Giacomo, 2023. "Temporal discounting in later life," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 87-101.
    11. Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin & Alhusen, Harm, 2019. "On the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A literature review and guide for the empirical economist," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 350, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics, revised 2019.
    12. Meyer, Andrew, 2016. "Is unemployment good for the environment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-30.
    13. Mónica Pérez-Ramírez & Marco A. Almendarez-Hernández & Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & Luis F. Beltrán-Morales, 2015. "Consumer Acceptance of Eco-Labeled Fish: A Mexican Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Klaus Nowotny, 2010. "Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Cross-border Commuting and Migration Intentions," WIFO Working Papers 379, WIFO.
    15. Altunbas, Yener & Gambacorta, Leonardo & Reghezza, Alessio & Velliscig, Giulio, 2022. "Does gender diversity in the workplace mitigate climate change?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    16. Achtnicht, Martin, 2009. "German car buyers' willingness to pay to reduce CO₂ emissions," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-058, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Peter Z. Grossman, 2019. "Utilizing Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework toward an understanding of crisis-driven policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 3-20, March.
    18. Karen Maguire & John V. Winters, 2017. "Energy Boom and Gloom? Local Effects of Oil and Natural Gas Drilling on Subjective Well†Being," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 590-610, December.
    19. Achtnicht, Martin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2014. "Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 254-263.
    20. Tenaw G. Abate & Morten R. Mørkbak & Søren B. Olsen, 2018. "Inducing value and institutional learning effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 339-351, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:91:y:2016:i:c:p:341-351. 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.