IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i10p1713-d113081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marcellus Shale Fracking and Susquehanna River Stakeholder Attitudes: A Five-Year Update

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Heuer

    (The Sigmund Weis School of Business, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870, USA)

  • Shan Yan

    (The Sigmund Weis School of Business, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870, USA)

Abstract

The attitudes of Susquehanna River stakeholders regarding natural gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Marcellus Shale region reflect differing concerns on economic, social, and environmental issues based on gender, education level, and income. The focus on the U.S. State of Pennsylvania section of the Susquehanna River derives from the U.S. States of New York and Maryland, neighbors of Pennsylvania to the immediate north and south, respectively, enacting bans on fracking, while Pennsylvania has catapulted, through Marcellus fracking, to become the second largest natural gas producing state in the U.S. In this Pennsylvania survey, female and more highly educated stakeholders favor a moratorium on fracking, while males and lower income stakeholders support fracking. Of the four categories used to organize the survey, i.e. economic opportunity, health and safety, communities, and energy security, the category of health and safety ranked first in both the 2012 and 2017 survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Heuer & Shan Yan, 2017. "Marcellus Shale Fracking and Susquehanna River Stakeholder Attitudes: A Five-Year Update," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1713-:d:113081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1713/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1713/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbara Warner & Jennifer Shapiro, 2013. "Fractured, Fragmented Federalism: A Study in Fracking Regulatory Policy," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 474-496, July.
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    3. Middleton, Richard S. & Gupta, Rajan & Hyman, Jeffrey D. & Viswanathan, Hari S., 2017. "The shale gas revolution: Barriers, sustainability, and emerging opportunities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 88-95.
    4. 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)

    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. Ilia Murtazashvili & Ennio E. Piano, 2019. "Governance of shale gas development: Insights from the Bloomington school of institutional analysis," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 159-179, June.
    2. Arnold, Gwen & Farrer, Benjamin & Holahan, Robert, 2018. "How do landowners learn about high-volume hydraulic fracturing? A survey of Eastern Ohio landowners in active or proposed drilling units," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 455-464.
    3. Mayer, Adam, 2017. "Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-459.
    4. 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.
    5. Li, Boying & Zheng, Mingbo & Zhao, Xinxin & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2021. "An assessment of the effect of partisan ideology on shale gas production and the implications for environmental regulations," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    6. Ilia Murtazashvili & Veeshan Rayamajhee & Keith Taylor, 2023. "The Tragedy of the Nurdles: Governing Global Externalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, April.
    7. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    8. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    9. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    10. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    11. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    12. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    13. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    14. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    15. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    16. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    17. Valcu-Lisman, Adriana & Weninger, Quinn, 2012. "Markov-Perfect rent dissipation in rights-based fisheries," ISU General Staff Papers 201209260700001037, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    19. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    20. Ralph E. Townsend, 2010. "Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 301-320, July.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1713-:d:113081. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.