IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v129y2019icp693-697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Andersson-Hudson, Jessica
  • Rose, Jonathan
  • Humphrey, Mathew
  • Knight, Wil
  • O'Hara, Sarah

Abstract

Shale gas extraction is a highly controversial process. Despite significant proven or potential reserves, public reaction to extraction have often been negative. In some cases, this has prevented exploration. In this paper, we investigate the structure of public attitudes to shale gas extraction in the context of the United Kingdom, using a dedicated survey of 4992 respondents. We find that public attitudes to shale gas extraction have a unidimensional structure, such that all questions about the virtues and limitations of extraction are treated as a single issue. Nonetheless, this general structure masks two distinct attitudinal structures. Those with more familiarity with shale gas have a very strong unidimensional attitudinal structure, while those with the least familiarity have a two-dimensional attitudinal structure; representing distinctions between perceived positive and negative attributes. This suggests an important role for information in conditioning responses to shale gas, a factor with implications for how government addresses policy relating to shale gas extraction.

Suggested Citation

  • Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:693-697
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519301399
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.056?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2007. "Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 20(i11).
    2. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    3. van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. "Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 139-163, April.
    4. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    5. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2012. "New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i05).
    6. Charles Davis & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2014. "Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    9. Cees van der Eijk & Jonathan Rose, 2015. "Risky Business: Factor Analysis of Survey Data – Assessing the Probability of Incorrect Dimensionalisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-31, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Tianjun & Wu, Jinyu & Pang, Mingkun & Liu, Rongtao & Zhu, Shipeng & Pan, Hongyu, 2024. "Experimental study on the negative pressure loss generated by the gas influx process around a long borehole," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Yang, Haijun & Han, Xin & Wang, Li, 2021. "Is there a bubble in the shale gas market?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    3. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    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. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Dima, Alexandra L. & Stutterheim, Sarah E. & Lyimo, Ramsey & de Bruin, Marijn, 2014. "Advancing methodology in the study of HIV status disclosure: The importance of considering disclosure target and intent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 166-174.
    5. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    6. Mirko Antino & Jesús M. Alvarado & Rodrigo A. Asún & Paul Bliese, 2020. "Rethinking the Exploration of Dichotomous Data: Mokken Scale Analysis Versus Factorial Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(4), pages 839-867, November.
    7. Coromina, Lluís & Camprubí, Raquel, 2016. "Analysis of tourism information sources using a Mokken Scale perspective," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-84.
    8. Penny Bee & Chris Gibbons & Patrick Callaghan & Claire Fraser & Karina Lovell, 2016. "Evaluating and Quantifying User and Carer Involvement in Mental Health Care Planning (EQUIP): Co-Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
    9. Grecu, Eugenia & Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela & Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu, 2018. "The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 691-700.
    10. Anne-Linda Camerini & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Social Desirability Bias in Child-Report Social Well-Being: Evaluation of the Children’s Social Desirability Short Scale Using Item Response Theory and Examination of Its Impact on Self-Report Family ," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(4), pages 1159-1174, August.
    11. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    13. Jesper Tijmstra & Maria Bolsinova, 2019. "Bayes Factors for Evaluating Latent Monotonicity in Polytomous Item Response Theory Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 846-869, September.
    14. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    15. Jacob B. Rode & Peter H. Ditto, 2020. "Comparing the effects of a news article’s message and source on fracking attitudes in an experimental study," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 255-269, September.
    16. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Bastiaan Bruinsma, 2020. "A comparison of measures to validate scales in voting advice applications," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1299-1316, August.
    18. 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).
    19. Clarke, Christopher E. & Hart, Philip S. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Stedman, Richard C., 2015. "Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-140.
    20. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.

    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:eee:enepol:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:693-697. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.