UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy

UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for... This paper discusses a survey of public opinions on hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) for shale gas, conducted with a representative sample of 1745 British adults. Unusually, it examines beliefs about positive and negative statements about fracking as well as support/opposition. A majority of respondents correctly answered an initial question testing basic knowledge of shale gas extraction. More respondents supported fracking in Britain (36%) than opposed it (32%) but only 22% supported fracking locally, while 45% were opposed. Respondents were more united in negative beliefs than positive beliefs about fracking. More knowledgeable participants held more polarised views and were significantly more likely than others to agree with negative statements and to oppose fracking in their local area. More respondents disagreed than agreed that it is possible to compensate for fracking risks by payments to local communities. Policy implications include: increasing public knowledge about fracking will not necessarily lead to more positive beliefs and support regarding shale gas developments; promoting alleged economic benefits of shale gas is not enough to ensure support; engaging in genuinely inclusive participatory decision-making may be more likely to increase support than offering payments to communities; alternatively, developing more renewable energy capacity promises to be more popular than fracking. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Energy Policy Elsevier

UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy

10 pages
Read Article

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/uk-public-beliefs-about-fracking-and-effects-of-knowledge-on-beliefs-cppU04oL8m
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0301-4215
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.061
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper discusses a survey of public opinions on hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) for shale gas, conducted with a representative sample of 1745 British adults. Unusually, it examines beliefs about positive and negative statements about fracking as well as support/opposition. A majority of respondents correctly answered an initial question testing basic knowledge of shale gas extraction. More respondents supported fracking in Britain (36%) than opposed it (32%) but only 22% supported fracking locally, while 45% were opposed. Respondents were more united in negative beliefs than positive beliefs about fracking. More knowledgeable participants held more polarised views and were significantly more likely than others to agree with negative statements and to oppose fracking in their local area. More respondents disagreed than agreed that it is possible to compensate for fracking risks by payments to local communities. Policy implications include: increasing public knowledge about fracking will not necessarily lead to more positive beliefs and support regarding shale gas developments; promoting alleged economic benefits of shale gas is not enough to ensure support; engaging in genuinely inclusive participatory decision-making may be more likely to increase support than offering payments to communities; alternatively, developing more renewable energy capacity promises to be more popular than fracking.

Journal

Energy Policy – Elsevier

Published: Feb 1, 2018

References

  • Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom
    Andersson-Hudson, J.; Knight, W.; Humphrey, M.; O’Hara, S.
  • Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates
    Bomberg, E.
  • Unconventional and unburnable: why going all out for shale gas is the wrong direction for the UK's energy policy
    Bosworth, T.
  • “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing
    Boudet, H.; Clarke, C.; Bugden, D.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Leiserowitz, A.
  • Has US Shale Gas Reduced CO2 Emissions? Examining Recent Changes in Emissions from the US Power Sector and Traded Fossil Fuels
    Broderick, J.; Anderson, K.
  • Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers
    Burningham, K.
  • Attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing: the opposing forces of political conservatism and basic knowledge about fracking
    Choma, B.L.; Hanoch, Y.; Currie, S.
  • Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology
    Clarke, C.E.; Hart, P.S.; Schuldt, J.P.; Evensen, D.T.N.; Boudet, H.S.; Jacquet, J.B.; Stedman, R.C.
  • Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis
    Cotton, M.; Rattle, I.; Van Alstine, J.
  • Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research
    Davidson, D.J.; Freudenburg, W.R.
  • DECC Public Attitudes Tracker – Wave
    DECC
  • Public values for energy system change
    Demski, C.; Butler, C.; Parkhill, K.A.; Spence, A.; Pidgeon, N.F.
  • Can shale gas help accelerate the transition to sustainability?
    Dernbach, J.C.; May, J.R.
  • Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy
    Devine-Wright, P.
  • Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action
    Devine-Wright, P.
  • Natural gas: should fracking stop?
    Engelder, T.
  • Word choice matters: comment on Stoutenborough et al. (2016), ‘Is “fracking” a new dirty word?’
    Evensen, D.
  • ‘If they only knew what I know’: attitude change from education about ‘fracking’
    Evensen, D.
  • What's the ‘fracking’ problem? One word can’t say it all
    Evensen, D.; Jacquet, J.B.; Clarke, C.E.; Stedman, R.C.
  • Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development
    Evensen, D.; Stedman, R.
  • Natural gas: should fracking stop?
    Howarth, R.W.; Ingraffea, A.
  • Fracking in the UK press: threat dynamics in an unfolding debate
    Jaspal, R.; Nerlich, B.
  • Fracking and public relations: rehearsing the arguments and making the case
    Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D.
  • The contested future of fracking for shale gas in the UK: risk, reputation and regulation
    Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D.
  • Fixing the communications failure
    Kahan, D.
  • Cultural cognition of scientific consensus
    Kahan, D.M.; Jenkins‐Smith, H.; Braman, D.
  • The impact of shale gas on the costs of climate policy
    Kersting, J.; Duscha, V.; Schleich, J.; Keramidas, K.
  • The economic impact of shale gas extraction: a review of existing studies
    Kinnaman, T.C.
  • Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence
    Lord, C.G.; Ross, L.; Lepper, M.R.
  • How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012?
    Mazur, A.
  • Fear, loathing and shale gas. The introduction of fracking to the UK: a case study
    McQueen, D.
  • A conceptual model of the socioeconomic impacts of unconventional fossil fuel extraction
    Measham, T.G.; Fleming, D.A.; Schandl, H.
  • Public Perception of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: Two Years on From the Balcombe Protests. Report of the Nottingham Tracker Survey on Public Perception of Shale Gas Extraction
    O’Hara, S.; Humphrey, M.; Andersson-Hudson, J.; Knight, W.
  • Fracking, sustainability, and democracy
    O’Riordan, T.
  • Seeing futures now: emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems
    Partridge, T.; Thomas, M.; Harthorn, B.H.; Pidgeon, N.; Hasell, A.; Stevenson, L.; Enders, C.
  • The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology
    Siegrist, M.
  • Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield
    Slovic, P.
  • Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
    Sovacool, B.K.
  • Comparing the relationship between knowledge and support for hydraulic fracturing between residents of the United States and the United Kingdom
    Stedman, R.C.; Evensen, D.; O’Hara, S.; Humphrey, M.
  • Is “fracking” a new dirty word? The influence of word choice on public views toward natural gas attitudes
    Stoutenborough, J.W.; Robinson, S.E.; Vedlitz, A.
  • A response to “Word choice matters: comment on Stoutenborough et al. (2016), ‘Is “fracking” a new dirty word?’”
    Stoutenborough, J.W.; Robinson, S.E.; Vedlitz, A.
  • Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK
    Thomas, M.; Partridge, T.; Harthorn, B.H.; Pidgeon, N.
  • Public Engagement with Shale Gas and Oil: A Report on Findings from Public Dialogue Workshops (No. URN: 14D/262)
    TNS BMRB
  • Shale Gas: An Updated Assessment of Environmental and Climate Change Impacts. A Report by Researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
    Tyndall Centre
  • UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support
    Whitmarsh, L.; Nash, N.; Upham, P.; Lloyd, A.; Verdon, J.P.; Kendall, J.M.
  • Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom
    Williams, L.; Macnaghten, P.; Davies, R.; Curtis, S.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.

Try 2 weeks free now

DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

or browse the journals available

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off

Sign up
for free
Start 14 day
Free Trial