IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v99y2016icp27-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development

Author

Listed:
  • McComas, Katherine A.
  • Lu, Hang
  • Keranen, Katie M.
  • Furtney, Maria A.
  • Song, Hwansuck

Abstract

Growing awareness of the potential for some energy-related activities to induce earthquakes has created a need to understand how the public evaluates the risks of induced earthquakes versus the benefits of energy development. To address this need, this study presents a web survey that used a between-subjects factorial experimental design to explore the views of 325 U.S. adults, who were asked about their experiences with earthquakes; risk perceptions related to different causes of earthquakes (e.g., natural versus induced); and acceptability of earthquakes depending on the benefits, beneficiaries, and decision making process. The results found that participants had more negative feelings toward induced versus naturally occurring earthquakes. Although they judged no earthquake as “acceptable,” participants rated induced earthquakes significantly less acceptable than naturally occurring ones. Attributing the benefits to the provision of renewable energy or climate change mitigation did not increase induced earthquake acceptability, and no particular beneficiary made earthquakes more acceptable, although private companies as beneficiaries made earthquakes less acceptable. Finally, induced earthquake acceptability was significantly higher when people believed that people like them had a voice in the decision to implement the technology that caused the earthquake, underscoring the importance of public engagement in the development of energy technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:99:y:2016:i:c:p:27-32
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151630492X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.026?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 Alphen, Klaas & van Voorst tot Voorst, Quirine & Hekkert, Marko P. & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2007. "Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4368-4380, August.
    2. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    3. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    4. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    5. McComas, Katherine A. & Stedman, Richard & Sol Hart, P., 2011. "Community support for campus approaches to sustainable energy use: The role of "town-gown" relationships," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2310-2318, May.
    6. Joseph L. Arvai, 2003. "Using Risk Communication to Disclose the Outcome of a Participatory Decision‐Making Process: Effects on the Perceived Acceptability of Risk‐Policy Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 281-289, April.
    7. Thorsteinsson, Hildigunnur H. & Tester, Jefferson W., 2010. "Barriers and enablers to geothermal district heating system development in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 803-813, February.
    8. Domenico Giardini, 2009. "Geothermal quake risks must be faced," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7275), pages 848-849, December.
    9. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    10. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    11. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz & Cathie Carlisle, 1999. "Public Support For Earthquake Risk Mitigation In Portland, Oregon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 205-216, April.
    12. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    13. Dowd, Anne-Maree & Boughen, Naomi & Ashworth, Peta & Carr-Cornish, Simone, 2011. "Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6301-6307, October.
    14. 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.
    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. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    2. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Richard T.J. Porter & Alberto Striolo & Haroun Mahgerefteh & Joanna Faure Walker, 2019. "Addressing the risks of induced seismicity in subsurface energy operations," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), March.
    4. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    6. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.
    7. Long, Michael A. & Ritchie, Liesel A. & Stretesky, Paul B. & Sibley, Martha, 2024. "Perceptions of social disruption in communities that experienced induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing in Colorado and Oklahoma, USA," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.
    9. Roach, Travis, 2018. "Oklahoma earthquakes and the price of oil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 365-373.

    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. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    2. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    3. L׳Orange Seigo, Selma & Dohle, Simone & Siegrist, Michael, 2014. "Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 848-863.
    4. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel, 2020. "Examining the inter-relationships between procedural fairness, trust in actors, risk expectations, perceived benefits, and attitudes towards power grid expansion projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    5. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Romanach, Lygia & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Muriuki, Grace, 2015. "Societal acceptance of an emerging energy technology: How is geothermal energy portrayed in Australian media?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1143-1150.
    7. Simone Carr-Cornish & Peta Ashworth & John Gardner & Stephen Fraser, 2011. "Exploring the orientations which characterise the likely public acceptance of low emission energy technologies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 549-565, August.
    8. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    9. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    10. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    11. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    13. Yang, Lin & Zhang, Xian & McAlinden, Karl J., 2016. "The effect of trust on people's acceptance of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies: Evidence from a survey in the People's Republic of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 69-79.
    14. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    15. Andrew B. Moynihan & Geertje Schuitema, 2020. "Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-33, June.
    16. Lock, Simon J. & Smallman, Melanie & Lee, Maria & Rydin, Yvonne, 2014. "“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 428-435.
    17. Bessette, Douglas L. & Arvai, Joseph L., 2018. "Engaging attribute tradeoffs in clean energy portfolio development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 221-229.
    18. van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO2-utilization for plastic products," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 53-66.
    19. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    20. Ciupuliga, A.R. & Cuppen, E., 2013. "The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 224-233.

    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:99:y:2016:i:c:p:27-32. 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.