IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i10p1770-1788.html

Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues

Author

Listed:
  • John D. Graham
  • John A. Rupp
  • Olga Schenk

Abstract

Unconventional gas development (UGD) is growing rapidly in the United States. Drawing on insights from risk perception and risk governance theories and recent public opinion surveys, we find that UGD is an emerging technology that is likely to be perceived as risky, even though objective risk assessments suggest that risks are low and controllable through best risk management practices. Perceived risk varies significantly depending on the state and locality but perceptions of risk appear to be increasing as the technology is used more widely in the United States and as organized opponents of the technology intensify their efforts. Risk perceptions are attenuated somewhat because of the perceived benefits of UGD and compensation schemes for individuals and communities. The types of triggering events necessary for large‐scale social amplification and stigmatization have not yet occurred but awareness of UGD is growing and organized opposition has been sufficient to cause prohibitions of UGD in some U.S. states and localities. Additional directions for social science research on public reactions to UGD are recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:10:p:1770-1788
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12512
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12512?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kinnaman, Thomas C., 2011. "The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1243-1249, May.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    3. Mason Inman, 2014. "Natural gas: The fracking fallacy," Nature, Nature, vol. 516(7529), pages 28-30, December.
    4. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    5. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    6. repec:aen:eeepjl:eeep4_1_krupnick is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Breakwell,Glynis M., 2014. "The Psychology of Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107602700, August.
    8. repec:aen:eeepjl:eeep4_1_chyong is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Haewon McJeon & Jae Edmonds & Nico Bauer & Leon Clarke & Brian Fisher & Brian P. Flannery & Jérôme Hilaire & Volker Krey & Giacomo Marangoni & Raymond Mi & Keywan Riahi & Holger Rogner & Massimo Tavon, 2014. "Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas," Nature, Nature, vol. 514(7523), pages 482-485, October.
    10. Weinstein, Amanda L., 2014. "Unconventional Oil and Gas Development's Impact on State and Local Economies," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 1-7.
    11. repec:aen:journl:eeep4_1_krupnick is not listed on IDEAS
    12. H. Keith Florig & M. Granger Morgan & Kara M. Morgan & Karen E. Jenni & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul S. Fischbeck & Michael L. DeKay, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 913-913, October.
    13. Breakwell,Glynis M., 2014. "The Psychology of Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107017016, August.
    14. Leslie A. Nieves & Jeffery J. Himmelberger & Samuel J. Ratick & Allen L. White, 1992. "Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-511, December.
    15. repec:aen:journl:eeep4_1_chyong is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:aen:eeepjl:eeep4_1_richardson is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kunreuther, Howard & Kleindorfer, Paul & Knez, Peter J. & Yaksick, Rudy, 1987. "A compensation mechanism for siting noxious facilities: Theory and experimental design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 371-383, December.
    18. Richard G. Newell & Daniel Raimi, 2015. "Shale Public Finance: Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development," NBER Working Papers 21542, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Robin Gregory & Robert Mendelsohn, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 259-264, June.
    20. repec:aen:journl:eeep4_1_richardson is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.
    22. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    2. Richard T.J. Porter & Alberto Striolo & Haroun Mahgerefteh & Joanna Faure Walker, 2019. "Addressing the risks of induced seismicity in subsurface energy operations," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), March.
    3. Yu Zhang & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2021. "Contrasting Public and Scientific Assessments of Fracking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    5. Lee, Michelle H.W. & Clark, Ashley & Rupp, John & Wietelman, Derek C. & Graham, John D., 2019. "Public opinion toward hydraulic fracturing: The effect of beyond compliance and voluntary third-party certification," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 306-315.
    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. Steve Westlake & Conor H. D. John & Emily Cox, 2023. "Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 149-158, February.
    8. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.

    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. Yu Zhang & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2021. "Contrasting Public and Scientific Assessments of Fracking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    3. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    5. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    6. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    7. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    8. Heon Baek, 2025. "Time-Lagged Dynamics of Risk and Prevention Communication in COVID-19 News in South Korea," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Piyapong Janmaimool & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2014. "Evaluating Determinants of Environmental Risk Perception for Risk Management in Contaminated Sites," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Paul Slovic, 2020. "Risk Perception and Risk Analysis in a Hyperpartisan and Virtuously Violent World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2231-2239, November.
    12. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    13. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    14. Burnett, J. Wesley, 2015. "FOREWORD: Unconventional Oil and Gas Development: Economic, Environmental, and Policy Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    16. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    17. Rita Domingues & Susana Costas & Saul Jesus & Óscar Ferreira, 2017. "SENSE OF PLACE, RISK PERCEPTIONS AND PREPAREDNESS OF A COASTAL POPULATION AT RISK (Faro Beach, Portugal): A qualitative content analysis," Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, CinTurs - Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, University of Algarve, vol. 5(3), pages 163-175.
    18. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    19. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Rusi Jaspal, 2022. "Chemsex, Identity and Sexual Health among Gay and Bisexual Men," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-16, September.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:10:p:1770-1788. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.