IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunefd/2017_013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Households’ Risk Perceptions in Response to Shale Gas Exploitation: Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Yu, Chin-Hsien
  • Huang, Shih-Kai
  • Qin, Ping
  • Chen, Xiaolan

Abstract

In 2014, China became the world’s third country to realize shale gas commercial development, following the United States and Canada. So far, there has been a lack of comprehensive discussion on risk perception related to shale gas in China. This paper aims to understand Chinese residents’ risk perceptions toward shale gas exploitation. A survey was conducted with 730 interviewed participants in two counties of Sichuan province (Weiyuan County and Gong County). This study shows that, in China, an elderly female tends to perceive lower risks, and a higher education level is commonly associated with lower risk perception. Besides the socio-demographic characteristics, two major findings are also explored in this study. First, household’s perceived benefits from shale gas exploitation do not statistically significantly affect their risk concerns. Second, the respondents’ environmental consciousness, including their anticipation of environmental impacts and their perceptions about environmental degradation, plays a crucial role in their perception of the risks of shale gas exploitation. This implies that local residents’ judgments on the severity of environmental impacts significantly contribute to their risk perceptions. These findings therefore contribute to local authorities’ policy making in protecting local residents from the risks of shale gas exploitation and in better communicating about risk with the residents.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2017. "Households’ Risk Perceptions in Response to Shale Gas Exploitation: Evidence from China," EfD Discussion Paper 17-13, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunefd:2017_013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.efdinitiative.org/sites/default/files/publications/dp_17-13_ms_351_shale_ping_as_posted_rff_oct_5_2017.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk perceptions; shale gas exploitation; environmental consciousness; China;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    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:hhs:gunefd:2017_013. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Franklin Amuakwa-Mensah (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.efdinitiative.org/ .

    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.