IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v38y2021i3p326-346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Lonnquist
  • Deborah Gallagher

Abstract

The hydraulic fracturing (fracking) boom has outpaced both our understanding of its potential impacts on human health and the environment, as well as the legal and regulatory frameworks in place to govern it. We conducted interviews in Pennsylvania with individuals living in communities affected by fracking to examine how residents perceive the laws and regulations that are in place to protect them from its risks. We found that residents felt that they lacked access to sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible information about the potential risks that fracking poses. We then drew from scholarship on the use of information disclosure as a regulatory tool to discuss the need for increased information transparency in the fracking context, and proposed several policy interventions that could ease the information asymmetry experienced by residents in these communities. 水力压裂（fracking）的激增不仅超出了我们对其对人类健康和环境的潜在影响的理解，还超出了用于治理水力压裂的现有法律和监管框架。我们对受水力压裂影响的宾夕法尼亚社区居民进行访谈，分析居民如何感知用于保护其远离风险的相关现有法律和规制。我们发现，居民认为自己无法充分获取全面的、易理解的水力压裂潜在风险信息。我们随后从关于信息披露作为监管工具的学术文献中提取信息，探讨水力压裂情境下对增强信息透明度的需求，并提出几项用于减少社区居民所经历的信息不对称的政策干预措施。 El auge de la fracturación hidráulica (fracking) ha superado tanto nuestra comprensión de sus posibles impactos en la salud humana y el medio ambiente, como los marcos legales y regulatorios vigentes para gobernarlo. Realizamos entrevistas en Pensilvania con personas que viven en comunidades afectadas por el fracking para examinar cómo los residentes perciben las leyes y regulaciones vigentes para protegerlos de sus riesgos. Descubrimos que los residentes sentían que no tenían acceso a información suficientemente completa y comprensible sobre los riesgos potenciales que plantea el fracking. Luego nos basamos en la investigación sobre el uso de la divulgación de información como una herramienta reguladora para discutir la necesidad de una mayor transparencia de la información en el contexto del fracking, y propusimos varias intervenciones de política que podrían aliviar la asimetría de información que experimentan los residentes en estas comunidades.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Lonnquist & Deborah Gallagher, 2021. "Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 326-346, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:3:p:326-346
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12423
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12423?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Mark Stephan, 2002. "Environmental Information Disclosure Programs: They Work, but Why?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 190-205, March.
    3. Gergely Nyilasy & Harsha Gangadharbatla & Angela Paladino, 2014. "Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer Reactions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 693-707, December.
    4. Aarti Gupta, 2008. "Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, May.
    5. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    6. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    7. Kriesky, J. & Goldstein, B.D. & Zell, K. & Beach, S., 2013. "Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 228-236.
    8. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    9. Konar, Shameek & Cohen, Mark A., 1997. "Information As Regulation: The Effect of Community Right to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 109-124, January.
    10. Jessica Alcorn & John Rupp & John D. Graham, 2017. "Attitudes Toward “Fracking”: Perceived and Actual Geographic Proximity," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(4), pages 504-536, July.
    11. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    12. Magali Delmas & Maria J. Montes‐Sancho & Jay P. Shimshack, 2010. "Information Disclosure Policies: Evidence From The Electricity Industry," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(2), pages 483-498, April.
    13. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    14. Samuel Issacharoff, 2011. "Disclosure, Agents, and Consumer Protection," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(1), pages 56-71, March.
    15. Howell, Emily L. & Li, Nan & Akin, Heather & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Xenos, Michael A. & Brossard, Dominique, 2017. "How do U.S. state residents form opinions about ‘fracking’ in social contexts? A multilevel analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 345-355.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hilary S. Boudet & Chad M. Zanocco & Peter D. Howe & Christopher E. Clarke, 2018. "The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1871-1890, September.
    2. Miron Avidan & Dror Etzion & Joel Gehman, 2019. "Opaque transparency: How material affordances shape intermediary work," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 197-219, June.
    3. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    6. Walsh, Kathryn Bills & Haggerty, Julia H., 2020. "Social license to operate during Wyoming's coalbed methane boom: Implications of private participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    8. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    9. Matisoff, Daniel C., 2013. "Different rays of sunlight: Understanding information disclosure and carbon transparency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 579-592.
    10. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    11. Deepa Anagondahalli & Monique Mitchell Turner, 2012. "Predicting Psychological Ripple Effects: The Role of Cultural Identity, In‐Group/Out‐Group Identification, and Attributions of Blame in Crisis Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 695-712, April.
    12. Fisk, Jonathan M. & Good, A.J., 2019. "Information booms and busts: Examining oil and gas disclosure policies across the states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 374-381.
    13. Belay, Dagim G. & Jensen, Jørgen D., 2020. "‘The scarlet letters’: Information disclosure and self-regulation: Evidence from antibiotic use in Denmark," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    15. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    16. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    17. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    18. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    19. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    20. Rory Sullivan & Andy Gouldson, 2007. "Pollutant release and transfer registers: examining the value of government‐led reporting on corporate environmental performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 263-273, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:3:p:326-346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.