Whose Backyard and What’s at Issue? Spatial and Ideological Dynamics of Local Opposition to Fracking in New York State, 2010 to 2013

Abstract

What drives local decisions to prohibit industrial land uses? This study examines the passage of municipal ordinances prohibiting gas development using hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in New York State. I argue that local action against fracking depended on multiple conceptions of the shale gas industry. Matching these alternative conceptions with prevailing spatial models of public response to industrial land uses—“not in my backyard,” “not in anyone’s backyard,” and “please in my backyard”—improves our understanding of where local contention might emerge and how it contributes to policy change. Results from event history and logistic regression analyses show, first, that communities lying above favorable areas of the shale did not pass anti-fracking laws because opposition to fracking was counteracted by significant local support for development. Fracking bans passed primarily in a geographic sweet spot on the periphery of targeted regions, where little or no compelling economic interest in development existed. Second, as fracking became the subject of a highly politicized national debate, local opposition increasingly reflected mobilization by political liberals. This trend is reflected in the increasing rate of ordinance adoption among Democratic-leaning communities outside the geographic sweet spot.

Rural Landowners, Energy Leasing, and Patterns of Risk and Inequality in the Shale Gas Industry

“…Research has often focused on the question of why oppositional mobilization does not emerge in cases where inequality and risk are present, including in the shale oil and gas industry (Bell ; Davidson ; Eaton and Kinchy ; McAdam and Boudet ). This study suggests that, at least in the case of shale gas, a lack of mobilization may simply be due in part to the fact that a large percentage of those directly affected had robust access to the siting process and are satisfied with their experience, a conclusion supported by other recent research (Dokshin ; Jacquet ; Jerolmack and Walker ).…”

“…However, procedural disenfranchisement and risk do persist, even if they are not the norm, a clear sign that while we find that property and mineral rights enable greater participation and subsequent benefits, they are not a panacea for the alleviation of harm and inequality. While property and mineral rights may enfranchise a critical set of actors, it is imperative that communities retain and bolster their capacity for democratic self‐determination in navigating environmental and social risk (Brulle ), a capacity that has frequently been exercised by communities across the Marcellus and elsewhere (Arnold, Long, and Gottlieb ; Arnold and Neupane ; Dokshin ).…”

“…For working‐class households, this logic is structured by poor economic prospects and a moral sense of individuality (Malin ; Popke ). This results in what Bullard () refers to as “economic blackmail,” or what Malin and DeMaster () refer to as a “devil’s bargain.” This logic offers a strong explanandum for local support of environmentally hazardous facilities that has been documented across multiple industries (Wright and Boudet ), including shale gas (Dokshin ; Eaton and Kinchy ).…”

Determinants of Pro‐Fracking Measure Adoption by New York Southern Tier Municipalities

“…This case may be an example of elite-driven policy advocacy where decision makers respond to the influence of a few rather than to mass public pressure. Dokshin (2016) suggests that in New York jurisdictions, pro-HVHF advocacy was often driven by a handful of large landowners. Arnold, Long, and Gottlieb (2016) find that pro-HVHF advocates were more successful when they possessed high-value connections to local officials.…”

Fracking Bad Guys: The Role of Narrative Character Affect in Shaping Hydraulic Fracturing Policy Preferences

“…However, it is a contentious topic among the U.S. public in terms of potential negative impacts such as groundwater contamination (Burton et al, 2014), air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (Stephenson, Doukas, & Shaw, 2012), and increased seismic activity (Ellsworth, 2013). Various U.S. states and communities have enacted-or sought to enact-moratoria and bans in response to public concerns about fracking safety (Dokshin, 2016). Public opinion about fracking remains divided, with public opinion polling showing a near even split between support and opposition for this practice (Pew Research Center, 2016).…”