Contrasting Public and Scientific Assessments of Fracking

Yu Zhang, John A. Rupp and John D. Graham
Additional contact information
Yu Zhang: Indiana University Bloomington, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affair, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
John A. Rupp: Indiana University Bloomington, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affair, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
John D. Graham: Indiana University Bloomington, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affair, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 12, 1-21

Abstract: This paper examines whether public perceptions of the claimed advantages and disadvantages of fracking are consistent with an evidence-based assessment of the claimed advantages and disadvantages. Public assessments are obtained from an internet-based opinion survey in 2014 in six states: California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The survey presented eleven advantages and eleven disadvantages of fracking derived from local media stories, from advocacy claims made by pro- or anti-fracking groups, and from think tank pieces. Then the respondents were asked to indicate their feelings about how important each claimed advantage and disadvantage was to their support of/opposition to fracking. Scientific assessments regarding the same claims are compiled from available peer-reviewed literature and evidence-based reviews. We classify each claim as either (a) supported by the weight of the available evidence, (b) not supported by the weight of the available evidence, or (c) there is inadequate evidence to assess it. We find less consistency with respect to the disadvantages than advantages. Respondents perceive four disadvantages out of eleven as extremely important while there is inadequate evidence to assess them or the available evidence does not support them. Our comparison has interesting implications for understanding the controversy about fracking.

Keywords: fracking; advantages and disadvantages; public perceptions; scientific assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6650/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6650/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6650-:d:572803

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().