The Influence of Value Orientations, Personal Beliefs, and Knowledge about Resource Extraction on Local Leaders' Positions on Shale Development

Abstract

Unconventional shale oil and gas production plays a prominent role in boosting economic growth and stimulating wealth creation in many communities. However, because of potential social and environmental drawbacks, including a lack of affordable housing and groundwater contamination from drilling, unconventional shale development is highly contentious in many areas and has resulted in many community conflicts. Hydraulic fracturing, which is a specific technology utilized in unconventional shale development, has proved especially contentious because of concerns about its long‐term environmental consequences. Given the fast pace of shale development, coupled with the controversy that surrounds it, we seek to understand what factors affect a local government official's stance on shale development and hydraulic fracturing. To do this we draw from value‐belief‐norms theory while additionally examining knowledge and community‐level factors that can influence an official's position. In this study, we survey 308 local government officials across six shale plays in the United States to examine local officials' positions on shale development and hydraulic fracturing. We find that the more positively officials perceive the consequences of shale development, the less likely they are to support banning hydraulic fracturing. Additionally, we find that networks to other shale communities are positively associated with favoring a ban. Further, leaders with a bachelor's degree or higher are more likely to favor a ban than those with lower than a bachelor's degree.

Evaluating the effects of living with contamination from the lens of trauma: a case study of fracking development in Alberta, Canada

“…Social-scientific literature on fracking is also emerging, with some studies focused on political and media discourse (Vasi et al 2015;Upham et al 2015;Hilson 2015;Hudgins and Poole 2014;Jaspal, Turner, and Nerlich 2014); state responses (Carter and Eaton 2016;Crowe, Ceresola, and Silva 2015a); civil society organizational responses (Neville and Weinthal 2016;Dodge 2015;Vesalon and Cretan 2015;Jalbert, Kinchy, and Perry 2014) and attitude studies (Crowe et al 2015b;Boudet et al 2016Boudet et al , 2014Heuer and Lee 2014;Kriesky et al 2013;Theodori 2009). A smaller set of studies focuses on social impacts.…”

The politics of scientific consensus? Political divergence and partisanship in unconventional energy development in the United States

“…Although there is no shortage of studies that gauge public attitudes about the likelihood and magnitude of specific impacts [33][34]37] and whether those impacts are beneficial or detrimental [9], research on public perception of scientific agreement on these dimensions is far less developed. To our knowledge, no studies have examined perceived consensus on the likelihood or magnitude of specific impacts, which would allow for a comparison with actual levels of consensus where available to identify gaps between the two.…”

“…As noted earlier, various studies have gauged the extent people view specific impacts as likely to happen and positive or negative if they occur [9,[33][34]37]. Of course, there can be considerable variation in such perceptions based on external factors like the intensity of energy development nearby [37], and people may understandably be undecided on the likelihood, magnitude, and valence of these impacts (or feel that things haven't changed) in the absence of direct personal experiences [40,72).…”

“…Pro/anti-UOGD movements and the policies they seek to promote speak to the role of public perception in shaping UOGD's longterm trajectory. Such perception reflects individual attitudes as well as broader social discourse among stakeholder groups, with psychological and social factors influencing both [9,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43].…”

“If You Talk Badly about Drilling, You're a Pariah”: Challenging a Capitalist Patriarchy in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Region

“…Contemporary research on energy development is largely gender neutral. For example, studies of framing perceptions (Forsyth, Luthra, and Bankson ), residents’ perceptions of change (Anderson and Theodori ; Brasier et al ; Theodori ; Willits, Luloff, and Theodori ), educators’ perceptions (Schafft et al ), energy workers’ perceptions of stigma (Filteau ), local leaders’ perceptions of risk and change (Brasier et al ; Crowe, Ceresola, and Silva ; Perry ; Schafft, Glenna, and Bourlu ), and views among New York and Pennsylvania residents (Stedman et al ) all present gender‐neutral findings. Similarly, research that chronicles residents’ perceptions of community well‐being through the pre boom, boom, and postboom stages does not account for gender differences among residents (Smith, Krannich, and Hunter ).…”