Public perceptions of shale gas in the UK: framing effects and decision heuristics

Abstract

Using two equivalent descriptions of the shale gas development process, we asked individuals to indicate their levels of support as well as their perceptions of the risks and costs involved. In version 1, shale gas development was framed as ‘fracking’, whereas under version 2 it was framed as ‘using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground’. We find that individuals’ support for shale gas development is much lower when using the term ‘fracking’ as opposed to the synonymous descriptive term, and moreover, these differences were substantive. Our analysis suggests that these differences appear to be largely the result of different assessments of the risks associated with ‘fracking’ as opposed to ‘using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground’. Our proposed explanation for these differences rests on the idea that shale gas development is a technical and complex process and many individuals will be bounded by the rationality of scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding this process. In turn, individuals may be relying on simple decision heuristics shaped by the way this issue is framed by the media and other interested parties which may constrain meaningful discourse on this topic with the public. Our findings also highlight some of the potential pitfalls when it comes to relying on survey research for assessing the public’s views towards complex environmental issues.

Keywords

Fracking / Framing effects / Energy / Shale gas exploration

References

[1] Andersson-Hudson J, Knight W, Humphrey M, O’Hara S. Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy, 2016, 98: 582-589

[2] Argetsinger B (2011) The Marcellus Shale: bridge to a clean energy future or bridge to nowhere? Environmental, energy and climate policy considerations for shale gas development in New York State. Pace Environ Law Rev 29:321–343. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol29/iss1/8. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

[3] Ashmoore O, Evensen D, Clarke C, Krakower J, Simon J. Regional newspaper coverage of shale gas development across Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania: similarities, differences, and lessons. Energy Res Soc Sci, 2016, 11: 119-132

[4] Baron D. Persistent media bias. J Public Econ, 2006, 90: 1-36

[5] Birdsell D, Rajaram H, Dempsey D, Viswanathan H. Hydraulic fracturing fluid migration in the subsurface: a review and expanded modelling results. Water Resour Res, 2015, 51: 7159-7188

[6] Bomberg E. Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J Environ Policy Plan, 2015

[7] Borick C, Rabe B, Lachapelle E. Public perceptions of shale gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania. Issues Energy Environ Policy, 2014, 14: 01-18

[8] Boudet H, Clarke C, Budgen D, Malbach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 2014, 65: 57-67

[9] Brasier K, Filteau M, McLaughlin D, Jacquet J, Stedman R, Kelsey T, Goetz S. Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. JRSS, 2011, 26: 32-61

[10] Broderick J, Anderson K, Wood R, Gilbert P, Sharmina M, Footitt A, Glynn A, Nicholls F (2011) Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts. Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester. http://www.programmeofficers.co.uk/Cuadrilla/CoreDocuments/CD40/CD40.25.PDF. Accessed 03 Apr 2017

[11] Brown S, Gabriel S, Egging R (2010) Abundant shale gas resources: some implications of energy policy. RFF DP 10-41, resources for the future, Washington, DC. http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-10-41.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2017

[12] Busby C, Mangano JJ. There’s a world going on underground—infant mortality and fracking in Pennsylvania. J Environ Prot, 2017, 8: 381-393

[13] Cameron D (2013) We cannot afford to miss out on shale gas. The Telegraph. 11th August 2013. Accessed 12 June 2017

[14] Christopherson SM, Frickey C, Rightor N (2013) A vote of no confidence: why local governments take action in response to shale gas development. Policy brief. CaRDI Res Policy Brief Ser 54:1–2. http://greenchoices.cornell.edu/resources/publications/communities/Vote_of_No_Confidence_WP.pdf. Accessed 08 Sept 2017

[15] Citi GPS (2012) Energy 2020: North America, the new Middle East? Citi GPS: global perspectives and solutions. https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/attachments/120411_gsf_MORSE_ENERGY_2020_North_America_the_New_Middle_East.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2017

[16] Clarke H, Eisner L, Styles P, Turner P. Felt seismicity associated with shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the first documented example in Europe. Geophys Res Lett, 2014, 41: 8308-8314

[17] Climek M, Brou L, Means M, Goidel K (2013) Fracking and polarization or public opinion. Louisiana State University. http://pprllsu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fracking-and-Polarization-of-Public-Opinion.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2017

[18] Cotton M. Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environ Plan A, 2015, 47: 1944-1962

[19] Cotton M. Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning. Local Environ, 2017, 22(2): 185-202

[20] Cotton M, Rattle I, Van Alstine J. Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy, 2014, 73: 427-438

[21] Davis JJ. The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. J Mass Commun Q, 1995, 72(2): 285-299

[22] Davis S, Shearer C. Climate change: a crack in the natural-gas bridge. Nature, 2014, 514: 436-437

[23] DBEIS (2016) Natural gas: chapter 4, digest of United Kingdom energy statistics (DUKES). UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540923/Chapter_4_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2017

[24] DECC (2013) The Carboniferous Bowland shale gas study: geology and resource estimation. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, London. https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/2782/bgs_decc_bowlandshalegasreport_main_report.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2017

[25] DECC (2014) The unconventional hydrocarbon resources of Britain’s onshore basins—shale gas. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, London. https://itportal.decc.gov.uk/web_files/promote/2015/regional_reports/Promote_UK_Shalegas_2015.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2017

[26] DECC (2016) DECC public attitudes tracker-Wave 17. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/602458/PAT_wave_17_Summary_of_key_findings.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017

[27] DiGiulio D, Jackson R. Impact to underground sources of drinking water and domestic wells from production well stimulation and completion practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming, Field. Environ Sci Technol, 2016, 50: 4524-4536

[28] Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D, Metcalfe R, Vlaev I. Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way. J Econ Psychol, 2012, 33(1): 264-277

[29] EIA (2017a) Annual energy outlook 2017. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2017).pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2017

[30] EIA (2017b) US natural gas production. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2M.htm. Accessed 29 Aug 2017

[31] Ellsworth W. L.. Injection-Induced Earthquakes. Science, 2013, 341(6142): 1225942-1225942

[32] Entman R. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun, 1993, 43: 51-58

[33] Evensen D, Jacquet JB, Clarke CE, Stedman RC. What’s the ‘fracking’problem? One word can’t say it all. Extr Ind Soc, 2014, 1(2): 130-136

[34] Evensen D, Clarke C, Stedman R. A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J Environ Stud Sci, 2014, 4: 65-77

[35] Ferrar KJ, Kriesky J, Christen CL, Marshall LP, Malone SL, Sharma RK, Michanowicz DR, Goldstein BD. Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. Int J Occup Environ Health, 2013, 19: 104-112

[36] Gentzkow M, Shapiro J. Media bias and reputation. J Polit Econ, 2006, 114: 280-316

[37] Habib S, Hinojosa MS. Representation of fracking in mainstream American newspapers. Environ Pract, 2016, 18(2): 83-93

[38] Hilson C. Framing fracking: which frames are heard in English planning and environmental policy and practice?. J Environ Law, 2015, 27: 177-202

[39] Holland C. Earthquakes triggered by hydraulic fracturing in south-central Oklahoma. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 2013, 103: 1784-1792

[40] Howarth R, Ingraffea A, Engelder T. Natural gas: should fracking stop?. Nature, 2011, 477: 271-275

[41] Howarth Robert W., Santoro Renee, Ingraffea Anthony. Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, 2011, 106(4): 679-690

[42] Hultman N, Rebois D, Scholten M, Ramig C. The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation. Environ Res Lett, 2011, 6: 1-9

[43] Jacquet JB. Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. Environ Sci Technol, 2014, 48: 8321-8333

[44] Jaspal R, Nerlich B. Fracking in the UK press: threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Underst Sci, 2013, 23: 348-363

[45] Jolls C, Sunstein CR, Thaler R. Theories and tropes: a reply to Posner and Kelman. Stanf Law Rev, 1998, 50: 1593-1608

[46] Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G. Thepolarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Change, 2012, 2(10): 732

[47] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol, 1984, 39: 341-350

[48] Kohrs E (1974) Social consequences of boom growth in Wyoming. Presented at the annual meeting of the southwestern and Rocky Mountain Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 24, 1974

[49] Kovats S, Depledge M, Haines A, Fleming LE, Wilkinson P, Shonkoff SB, Scovronick N. The health implications of fracking. Lancet, 2014, 383: 757-758

[50] Levi M. Climate consequences of natural gas as a bridge fuel. Clim Change, 2013, 118: 609-623

[51] Macalister T, Harvey F (2013) George Osborne unveils ‘most generous tax breaks in world’ for fracking. The Guardian. 19th July 2013. Accessed 12 June 2017

[52] NERA (2012) Macroeconomic impacts of LNG exports from the United States. NERA Economic Consulting, Washington, DC. http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/archive2/PUB_LNG_Update_0214_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2017

[53] Olive A. What is the fracking story in Canada?. Can Geogr, 2016, 60: 32-45

[54] Osborn S, Vengosh A, Warner N, Jackson R. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. PNAS, 2011, 108: 8172-8176

[55] Partridge T, Thomas M, Harthorn BH, Pidgeon N, Hasell A, Stevenson L, Enders C. Seeing futures now: emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems. Glob Environ Change, 2017, 42: 1-12

[56] Pater C, Baisch S (2011) Geomechanical study of Bowland Shale seismicity. Cuadrilla Resources Ltd., Lancashire. http://energyspeakswv.com/Resources/Docs/Studies/Final_Report_Bowland_Seismicity_02-11-11.pd1f. Accessed 21 June 2017

[57] Perry SL. Development, land use, and collective trauma: the Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Cult Agric Food Environ, 2012, 34: 81-92

[58] Public Health England (2013) Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction: draft for comment. Public Health England, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329744/PHE-CRCE-002_for_website_protected.pdf. Accessed: 29 Mar 2017

[59] Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineers (2012) Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineers, London. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/2012-06-28-shale-gas.pdf. Accessed 01 Apr 2017

[60] Schafft K, Borlu Y, Glenna L. The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociol, 2013, 78: 143-166

[61] Siegel D, Azzolina N, Smith B, Perry A, Bothun R. Methane concentrations in water wells unrelated to proximity to existing oil and gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol, 2015, 49: 4106-4112

[62] Sovacool B. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). JRSER, 2014, 37: 249-264

[63] Stoutenborough JW, Robinson SE, Vedlitz A. Is “fracking” a new dirty word? The influence of word choice on public views toward natural gas attitudes. Energy Res Soc Sci, 2016, 17: 52-58

[64] Theodori G. Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. South Rural Sociol, 2009, 24: 97-117

[65] Theodori G, Luloff A, Willits F, Burnett D. Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res Soc Sci, 2014, 2: 66-74

[66] Thomas Merryn, Pidgeon Nick, Evensen Darrick, Partridge Tristan, Hasell Ariel, Enders Catherine, Herr Harthorn Barbara, Bradshaw Michael. Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2017, 8(3): e450

[67] Thompson J. The Gillette Syndrome: Myth or reality?. Wyo Issues, 1979, 2: 30-35

[68] Vandecasteele I, Rivero I, Sala S, Baranzelli C, Barranco R, Batelaan O, Lavalle C. Impact of shale gas development on water resources: a case study in northern Poland. Environ Manag, 2015, 55: 1285-1299

[69] Watt N (2014) Fracking in the UK: ‘we’re going all out for shale, admits Cameron. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/13/shale-gas-fracking-cameron-all-out. Accessed 08 Sept 2017

[70] Werner AK, Vink S, Watt K, Jagals P. Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a review of the current strength of evidence. Sci Total Environ, 2015, 505: 1127-1141

[71] Whitmarsh L, Upham P, Poortinga W, Darnton A, McLachlan C, Devine-Wright P, Sherry-Brennan F, Demski C (2011) Public attitudes, understanding and engagement in relation to low-carbon energy. A selective review of academic and non-academic literatures: report for RCUK energy programme. Research Councils UK, Cardiff. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/22753/1/EnergySynthesisFINAL20110124.pdf. Accessed 07 Apr 2017

[72] Whitmarsh L, Nash N, Upham P, Lloyd A, Verdon J, Michael K. UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl Energy, 2015, 160: 419-430

[73] Whitton J, Brasier K, Parry IM, Cotton M. Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States: opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice. Energy Res Soc Sci, 2017, 26: 11-22

[74] Wigley TM. Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage. Clim Change, 2011, 108: 601

[75] Williams L, Macnaghten P, Davies P, Curtis S. Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Underst Sci, 2017, 26: 89-104

[76] Wu K, Paranjothi G, Milford J, Kreith F. Transition to sustainability with natural gas from fracking. Sustain Energy Technol Assess, 2016, 14: 26-34

[77] Young N, Dugas E. Representations of climate change in Canadian national print media: the banalization of global warming. Can J Sociol, 2011, 48: 01-22

[78] Young N, Matthews R. The aquaculture controversy in Canada: activism, policy, and contested science, 2010 Vancouver BC Studies (Chapter 3)