Fracking boomtowns? Proximity, intensity, and perceptions of shale gas extraction in Hughesville and Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania

Podeschi, Christopher W.; Brunskill, Jeffrey C.; Theodori, Gene L.

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102250

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For names of the "Localities that have previously restricted fracking", refer to Map 3. Source: Ballotpedia, n.d.a;EIA, 2022;EIA, 2022d. Fracking is spatially unique, developmentally and socially, compared to traditional energy development projects partially because of its technological innovations (Podeschi et al, 2021). Developmentally, the industry has no control over where the shale plays, the main fracking reservoirs in Colorado, are located.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As seen in Map 1, Colorado sits above a sizable shale play, the Niobrara shale formation. Shale plays can be, and the Niobrara shale formation is, next to urban or rural communities, under locations with land use conflicts, and there can be high or low densities of fracking wells close together (Podeschi et al, 2021;Schafft et al, 2019). Socially, fracking changes the community and environment surrounding its development, infringing on localities' health and sense of place (Meng & Ashby, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Socially, fracking changes the community and environment surrounding its development, infringing on localities' health and sense of place (Meng & Ashby, 2014). Visually, fracking brings in a lot of equipment and impacts and uses nearby natural resources (Podeschi et al, 2021). Health-wise, residents living within 1km of fracking have a higher risk of water contamination, and those who live even closer have an increased risk of exposure to gas emissions and pollution (Meng & Ashby, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social deterrents are present because, despite the benefits of fracking, it also has numerous downsides that those opposed to fracking use to advocate against development. Some of the inconvenient effects of fracking are, increased water, groundwater, noise, light, and air pollution (Podeschi et al, 2021;Boudet et al, 2018); harmful health outcomes due to pollution (Raimi et al, 2021); a strain on local resources and infrastructure (Raimi et al, 2021); increased water use (Boudet et al, 2016); economic dependence on the industry (Boudet et al, 2016); industrial accidents (Boudet et al, 2016); and overall obstructive effects on community's quality of life (Raimi et al, 2019;Boudet et al, 2019;Lee & Clarke 2020). Due to these negative externalities of fracking, some localities across Colorado, through social advocacy and legal processes like legislative action and ballot propositions, have passed limitations, bans, or moratoriums on fracking, as shown in Map 2 (Ballotpedia, n.d.b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirdly, although democrats typically oppose and republicans support fracking, Colorado has seen historic bipartisan support and opposition towards fracking due to the plethora of negative and positive effects (Howell et al, 2017;Podeschi et al, 2021;Boudet et al, 2016;Bartels, 2016). For example, when Initiative 97, a ballot measure that would have increased fracking's setback distance, was on the state ballot in 2018, opposing candidates for the governorship of Colorado both opposed the measure because it would have effectively banned fracking in Colorado, limiting economic growth (Evans, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Impact of Generational Roles on the Fashion Industry

Hansen¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fracking has grown rapidly across the United States over the past decade, reforming energy landscapes and governance. A vast body of research has explored how public opinion on fracking varies spatially. The context-specific results suggest that those closer to fracking are more supportive of the industry, while support decreases along partisan lines as proximity to fracking recedes. We use state-collected fracking data and coded legislative testimonies to detail the first density-based proximity logit analysis of policy actor positionality on Colorado Senate Bill 19-181 (SB19-181), a bill overhauling fracking governance in favor of stricter regulations. Proximity findings show that as recent fracking density increases, SB19-181 policy actors are more likely to oppose SB19-181. However, as historical fracking density increases, they are more likely to support SB19-181. Furthermore, partisanship is a strong predictor of positionality. Democrats are always more likely to support SB19-181, while republicans express the opposite trend. However, density and time do affect partisanship. Democrats in low-density ZCTAs are more likely to support SB19-181 than their highdensity counterparts. Notably, high-densities of historical fracking are the only spatial location where republican policy actors are more likely to support SB19-181. Findings also indicate more participation in zero-and low-density ZCTAs, meaning fracking development does not necessitate interest in its governance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%