Log in

Neither Knowledge Deficit nor NIMBY: Understanding Opposition to Hydraulic Fracturing as a Nuanced Coalition in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (USA)

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The expansion of unconventional sources of natural gas across the world has generated public controversy surrounding fracking drilling methods. Public debates continue to reverberate through policy domains despite very inconclusive biophysical evidence of net harm. As a consequence, there is a need to test the hypothesis that resistance to fracking is due to the way it redistributes economic and environmental risks. As in many other communities, opposition to fracking is common in central Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, (USA) but the rationale underpinning opposition is poorly understood. We test the prevailing assumption in the environmental management literature that fracking opposition is motivated by knowledge deficits and/or not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) politics. This study uses Q methodology to examine emergent perspectives and sub-discourses within the fracking opposition debate in central Westmoreland County, PA. Q methodology offers a systematic and iterative use of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques to explore frequently overlooked marginal viewpoints that are critical to understanding the fracking problem. The analysis reveals four different narratives of factors amongst people actively involved in locally opposing fracking, labeled (1) Future Fears; (2) NIMBY (3) Community Concerns; and (4) Distrust Stakeholders. The conflicts that emerge across these four factors are indicative of deeper discourse within the fracking debate that signifies diversity in motivations, values, and convictions, and suggests the inadequacy of relying on knowledge deficit and/or NIMBY explanations to fracking politics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amico C, DeBelius D, Detrow S, Stiles M (2011) Natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. State Impact Pa. from Natl Public Radio 1 Jan 2011. Retrieved from http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/drilling/counties/

  • Anderson BJ, Theodori GL (2009) Local leaders’ perceptions of energy development in the Barnett shale. South. Rural Sociol 24:113–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker R, Thompson C, Mannion R (2006) Q methodology in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy 11(1):38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett JE, DeWeese B (2014) Using the Q methodology approach in human resource development research. Adv Dev Hum Resour 17(1):72–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C (2005) The “social gap” in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 14(4):460–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bomberg E (2017) Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J Environ Policy Plan 19(1):72–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Rekveldt MGC (2011) Managing project complexity. A study into adapting early project phases to improve project performance in large engineering projects. Delft Centre for Project Management. Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudet H, Clarke C, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2014) ‘Fracking’ controversy and communication: Using National Survey Data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasier KJ, Filteau MR, McLaughlin DK, Jacquet J, Stedman RC, Kelsey TW, Goetz SJ (2011) Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus shale: A comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. J Rural Soc Sci 26:32–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasier KJ, McLaughlin DK, Rhubart D, Stedman RC, Filteau MR, Jacquet J (2013) Risk perceptions of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Environ Pract 15(02):108–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer MQ (1999) Is accounting for tastes. J Advert Res 39(2):35–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown SR (1980) Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown SR (1993) A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subj 16(3/4):91–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke CE, Hart PS, Schuldt JP, Evensen DT, Boudet HS, Jacquet JB, Stedman RC (2015) Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough E, Bell D (2016) Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Res Lett 11(2):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton M (2015) Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environ Plan A 47(9):1944–1962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton M, Rattle I, Van Alstine J (2014) Shale Gas Policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 73:427–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuppen E (2012) Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sci 45(1):23–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuppen E, Bosch-Rekveldt MG, Pikaar E, Mehos DC (2016) Stakeholder engagement in large-scale energy infrastructure projects: Revealing perspectives using Q methodology. Int J Proj Manag 34(7):1347–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis C (2012) The politics of “fracking”: Regulating natural gas drilling practices in Colorado and Texas. Rev Policy Res 29(2):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis C, Fisk JM (2014) Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Rev Policy Res 31(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright P (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8(2):125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durning D (1999) The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q‐methodology. J Policy Anal Manag 18(3):389–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner M, Worsham J, Ringquist E (2006) Contemporary regulatory policy, 2nd edn. Lynn Rienner, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis G, Barry J, Robinson C (2007) Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J Environ Plan Manag 50(4):517–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evensen DT (2015) Policy decisions on shale gas development (‘fracking’): the insufficiency of science and necessity of moral thought. EnvironValues 24(4):511–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry BS (1997) Managing environmental and resettlement risks and opportunities in infrastructure. In: Kohli, H, Mody, A, Walton, M (eds) Choices for efficient private provision of infrastructure in East Asia, World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C.

  • Goldstein BD, Kriesky J, Pavliakova B (2012) Missing from the table: role of the environmental public health community in governmental advisory commissions related to Marcellus Shale drilling. Environ Health Perspect 120(4):483–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M (2009) Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of U.S. national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37(8):3242–3249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila T, Weible CM (2016) Contours of coalition politics on hydraulic fracturing within the United States of America. In: Weible CM, Heikkila T, Ingold K, Fischer M (eds) Debates on hydraulic fracturing: Comparing coalition politics in North America and Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 29–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila T, Weible CM, Pierce J (2014) Exploring the policy narratives and politics of hydraulic fracturing in New York. In: Jones MD, Shanahan EA, McBeth MK (eds) The science of stories: Applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 185–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Honadle B (2001) Theoretical and practical issues of local government capacity in an era of devolution. J Reg Anal Policy 31:77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin MD, Pischke EC (2015) Socio-spatial holes in the advocacy umbrella: The spatial diffusion of risk and network response among environmental organizations in the Marcellus hydro-fracturing region.” In: Howell FT, Porter J, Matthews S (eds) Recapturing space: New Middle-Range Theory in Spatial Demography, Springer, Cham, pp 199–233

  • Jacquet J (2009) Energy Boomtowns and Natural Gas: implications for Marcellus shale local governments and rural communities. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development (NERCRD) Rural Development Paper 43. NERCRD, State College, PA, 64 pp.

  • Jacquet JB (2012) Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 50:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet JB, Stedman RC (2011) The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. J Environ Plan Manag 57(9):1285–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaspal R, Nerlich B (2013) Fracking in the UK Press: Threat Dynamics in an Unfolding Debate. Public Underst Sci 23:348–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith HC, Sabatier PA (1994) Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework. J Public Policy 14:175–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelso M (2015) Time sequence map of PA drilling (http://fractracker.org/2015/11/time-sequence-map-pa-drilling/)

  • Koontz TM, Moore Johnson E (2004) One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed groups accomplishments. Policy Sci 37(2):185–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriesky J, Goldstein BD, Zell K, Beach S (2014) Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy 58:228–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave R, Lutz B (2014) Hydraulic fracturing: a critical physical geography review. Geogr Compass 8(10):739–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey P (2012) U.S. to Overtake Saudi as Top Oil Producer. IEA, Reuters

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environ Manag 41(4):487–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw S (2011) The end of country. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaud K, Carlisle JE, Smith ER (2008) NIMBYism vs. environmentalism in attitudes toward energy development. Environ Polit 17(1):20–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris PWG (1994) The management of projects. Thomas Telford, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nalau J, Preston B, Maloney MC (2015) Is adaptation a local responsibility? Environ Sci Policy 48:89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.011

  • Neville KJ, Weinthal E (2016) Scaling up site disputes: strategies to redefine ‘local’ in the fight against fracking. Environ Polit 25(4):569–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Leary K, Wobbrock JO, Riskin EA (2013) Q-methodology as a research and design tool forHCI. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). Paris, France(April 27-May 2, 2013). New York: ACM Press, pp 1941–1950

  • Olmstead SM, Muehlenbachs LA, Shih JS, Chu Z, Krupnick AJ (2013) Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(13):4962–4967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paredes D, Komarek T, Loveridge S (2015) Income and employment effects of shale gas extraction windfalls: Evidence from the Marcellus region. Energy Econ 47:112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendall R (1999) Opposition to housing: NIMBY and beyond. Urban Aff Rev 35(1):112–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2000–2012). DEP oil & gas reporting website–Statewide data downloads by reporting period. Retrieved from https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/DataExports/DataExports.aspx

  • Perry SL (2012) Development, land use, and collective trauma: The Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Cult, Agric, Food Environ 34(1):81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Previte J, Pini B, Haslam-McKenzie F (2007) Q methodology and rural research. Sociol Rural 47(2):135–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruneddu A (2012) Q sortware. Program documentation. Dr. Alessio Pruneddu, 1 July 2012. Retrieved Nov 1:2015

  • Rabe BG, Borick C (2013) Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania’s early move into fracking policy development. Rev Policy Res 30(3):321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MG, Bruyneel S (2010) Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: a three-dimensional review. Prog Hum Geogr 1–8. 34(5) 646–653 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509354836

  • Schafft KA, Borlu Y, Glenna L (2013) The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociol 78(2):143–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmolck P (2002) PQ method 2.11 for Macintosh. Retrieved from http://www.Irz-muenchen.de/-schmolck/qmethod/01.03.2012

  • Smith ER, Marquez M (2000) The other side of the NIMBY syndrome. Soc Nat Resour 13(3):273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MF, Ferguson DP (2013) “Fracking Democracy”: Issue management and locus of policy decision-making in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling debate. Public Relat Rev 39:377–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stainton RogersR (1995) Q methodology. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L (eds) Rethinking methods in psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 178–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedman RC, Jacquet JB, Filteau MR, Willits FK, Brasier KJ, McLaughlin DK (2012) Environmental reviews and case studies: Marcellus Shale gas development and new boomtown research- Views of New York and Pennsylvania residents. Environ Pract 14(04):382–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theodori GL (2009) Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. South Rural Soc 24(3):97–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodori GL, Luloff AE, Willits FK, Burnett DB (2014) Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of rrac flowback waters: Views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res & Soc Sci 2:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Information Agency (2015) Annual Energy Outlook 2015. Retrieved from www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf)

  • Van Exel J, de Graaf G (2005) Q methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved from http://www.qmethodology.net/PDF/Q-methodology

  • Wang Z, Krupnick A (2013) US shale gas development what led to the boom? Retrieved from http://rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-IB-13-04.pdf

  • Watts S, Stenner P (2012) Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA New Delhi, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber EP (2003) Bringing society back. In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitton J, Brasier K, Charnley-Parry I, Cotton M (2017) Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice. Energy Res Soc Sci 26:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willow AJ (2014) The new politics of environmental degradation: Unexpected landscapes of disempowerment and vulnerability. J Political Ecol 21(1):237–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink M (2006) Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31:85–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the environmental groups and respondents who participated in our study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle M. McLaughlin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix A: Crib Sheets

Appendix A: Crib Sheets

Appendix A Key: * = p < 0.01 # = p < 0.05 (statistical significance)

Factor 1

#

Statement

Rank

Most (+4)

2

Considering that the climate is already changing due to fossil fuel emissions, and that Pennsylvanians are increasingly feeling its effects, all fossil fuels need to stay in the ground.

+4

 

3

Much of the contamination associated with fracking is irreversible.

+4

Items ranked higher than other factors

4#

We are putting radioactive waste in a bunch of landfills in large quantities, and we don’t yet know the long-term danger of doing this.

+3

 

8#

Worrisome chemicals like bromide and salts often associated with waste water from fracking will seep into my drinking water.

+2

 

11

Pennsylvania is “simply not doing” studies into the possible health impacts of fracking.

+2

 

5

Foreclosure rates and abandonment levels increase in communities engaged in fracking.

0

 

1*

My property cannot be mortgaged or insured if fracking occurs in my community.

0

 

10

I feel that if I don’t sign leases to my mineral rights and properties, I will just get bundled in with those who do, to make drilling more efficient.

0

 

27

I don’t trust the fracking companies; they tried to have me sign a legal liability release.

−2

Items ranked lower than other factors

18

Rules requiring fracking operators to manage their air pollution are few and far between.

0

 

20

Fracking operations may result in increased erosion, altered chemical cycling, and reduced water levels.

−1

 

23*

Fracking will increase traffic and lead to higher pollution levels.

−1

 

29#

People living or working near active fracking wells may be exposed to certain pollutants at higher levels than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for lifetime exposure.

−1

 

24

Fracking can’t be made sustainable; it’s an unsustainable energy source.

−2

 

26

I am very fearful that nearby fracking will erode the value of my property.

−3

 

30

I am worried about the community impacts of fracking and the increased local demand for housing and medical care.

−3

Least (−4)

13

The location of the fracking site is absolutely the most critical variable to my opposition.

−4

 

25*

Fracking operations should be confined to industrial or already built up areas, like near power stations.

−4

Other distinguishing statements

22#

The whole planet is affected by the climate change induced by fracking.

+1

 

15*

Crime and social disagreement between residents will become worse if fracking enters my community.

−1

 

28#

The real solution is to ditch fossil fuels entirely.

−3

 

9

People who live near fracking are at increased risk of health problems ranging from birth defects to cancer.

+3

 

6

Greed and economic hardship have blinded many from seeing the real price we will all be paying if fracking takes over.

+3

Factor 2

#

Statement

 

Most (+4)

9

People who live near fracking are at increased risk of health problems ranging from birth defects to cancer.

+4

 

13*

The location of the fracking site is absolutely the most critical variable to my opposition.

+4

Items ranked higher than other factors

14

Waste coming from fracking sites are highly radioactive and cancer rates have tripled in fracking areas.

+3

 

29

People living or working near active fracking wells may be exposed to certain pollutants at higher levels than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for lifetime exposure.

+3

 

18

Rules requiring fracking operators to manage their air pollution are few and far between.

+2

 

26

I am very fearful that nearby fracking will erode the value of my property.

0

Items ranked lower than other factors

5

Foreclosure rates and abandonment levels increase in communities engaged in fracking.

−1

 

11

Pennsylvania is “simply not doing” studies into the possible health impacts of fracking.

−1

 

19

Fracking poses a huge threat to ecosystems.

−1

 

17*

Fracking is subsidized by the government in far greater amounts than renewable fuels, which is where we should be focusing our money.

−2

 

24

Fracking can’t be made sustainable; it’s an unsustainable energy source.

−2

 

1

My property cannot be mortgaged or insured if fracking occurs in my community.

−3

 

2*

Considering that the climate is already changing due to fossil fuel emissions, and that Pennsylvanians are increasingly feeling its effects, all fossil fuels need to stay in the ground.

−3

Least (−4)

21

The fracking boom that began in Pennsylvania around 2008 has not generated enough jobs or money to make fracking worth it.

−4

 

28*

The real solution is to ditch fossil fuels entirely.

−4

Other distinguishing statements

6*

Greed and economic hardship have blinded many from seeing the real price we will all be paying if fracking takes over.

+1

 

25

Fracking operations should be confined to industrial or already built up areas, like near power stations.

+3

 

22

The whole planet is affected by the climate change induced by fracking.

−2

 

7

All fracking companies should be using some form of identification to reveal the precise chemical formulation they are pum** into the ground.

+2

Factor 3 (+)

#

Statement

Rank

Most (+4)

2

Considering that the climate is already changing due to fossil fuel emissions, and that Pennsylvanians are increasingly feeling its effects, all fossil fuels need to stay in the ground.

+4

 

25

Fracking operations should be confined to industrial or already built up areas, like near power stations.

+4

Items ranked higher than other factors

15

Crime and social disagreement between residents will become worse if fracking enters my community.

+3

 

28*

The real solution is to ditch fossil fuels entirely.

+3

 

11

Pennsylvania is “simply not doing” studies into the possible health impacts of fracking.

+2

 

30

I am worried about the community impacts of fracking and the increased local demand for housing and medical care.

+2

 

23

Fracking will increase traffic and lead to higher pollution levels.

+1

 

26

I am very fearful that nearby fracking will erode the value of my property.

0

Items ranked lower than other factors

4

We are putting radioactive waste in a bunch of landfills in large quantities, and we don’t yet know the long-term danger of doing this.

+1

 

9#

People who live near fracking are at increased risk of health problems ranging from birth defects to cancer.

+1

 

7

All fracking companies should be using some form of identification to reveal the precise chemical formulation they are pum** into the ground.

0

 

5

Foreclosure rates and abandonment levels increase in communities engaged in fracking.

−1

 

6*

Greed and economic hardship have blinded many from seeing the real price we will all be paying if fracking takes over.

−2

 

8#

Worrisome chemicals like bromide and salts often associated with waste water from fracking will seep into my drinking water.

−2

 

12#

The fracking industry is learning their “craft” as they go and using my community as guinea pigs.

−2

 

1

My property cannot be mortgaged or insured if fracking occurs in my community.

−3

 

10

I feel that if I don’t sign leases to my mineral rights and properties, I will just get bundled in with those who do, to make drilling more efficient.

−3

 

16*

The consistently high levels of fracking investment in political contributions and lobbying should worry all Pennsylvanians.

−3

 

19

Fracking poses a huge threat to ecosystems.

−3

Least (−4)

22

The whole planet is affected by the climate change induced by fracking.

−4

 

27

I don’t trust the fracking companies; they tried to have me sign a legal liability release.

−4

Other distinguishing statements

24#

Fracking can’t be made sustainable; it’s an unsustainable energy source.

0

 

13*

The location of the fracking site is absolutely the most critical variable to my opposition.

0

 

3

Much of the contamination associated with fracking is irreversible.

+3

Factor 3 (-)

#

Statement

 

Most (+4)

22

The whole planet is affected by the climate change induced by fracking.

+4

 

27

I don’t trust the fracking companies; they tried to have me sign a legal liability release.

+4

Items ranked higher than other factors

1

My property cannot be mortgaged or insured if fracking occurs in my community.

+3

 

10

I feel that if I don’t sign leases to my mineral rights and properties, I will just get bundled in with those who do, to make drilling more efficient.

+3

 

16

The consistently high levels of fracking investment in political contributions and lobbying should worry all Pennsylvanians.

+3

 

8

Worrisome chemicals like bromide and salts often associated with waste water from fracking will seep into my drinking water.

+2

 

12

The fracking industry is learning their “craft” as they go and using my community as guinea pigs.

+2

 

5

Foreclosure rates and abandonment levels increase in communities engaged in fracking.

+1

 

20

Fracking operations may result in increased erosion, altered chemical cycling, and reduced water levels.

+1

 

21

The fracking boom that began in Pennsylvania around 2008 has not generated enough jobs or money to make fracking worth it.

+1

Items ranked lower than other factors

3

Much of the contamination associated with fracking is irreversible.

−3

 

15

Crime and social disagreement between residents will become worse if fracking enters my community.

−3

 

11

Pennsylvania is “simply not doing” studies into the possible health impacts of fracking.

−2

 

29

People living or working near active fracking wells may be exposed to certain pollutants at higher levels than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for lifetime exposure.

−2

 

4

We are putting radioactive waste in a bunch of landfills in large quantities, and we don’t yet know the long-term danger of doing this.

−1

 

9

People who live near fracking are at increased risk of health problems ranging from birth defects to cancer.

−1

 

18

Rules requiring fracking operators to manage their air pollution are few and far between.

−1

 

23

Fracking will increase traffic and lead to higher pollution levels.

−1

 

7

All fracking companies should be using some form of identification to reveal the precise chemical formulation they are pum** into the ground.

0

Least (−4)

2

Considering that the climate is already changing due to fossil fuel emissions, and that Pennsylvanians are increasingly feeling its effects, all fossil fuels need to stay in the ground.

−4

 

25

Fracking operations should be confined to industrial or already built up areas, like near power stations.

−4

Factor 4

#

Statement

Rank

Most (+4)

6

Greed and economic hardship have blinded many from seeing the real price we will all be paying if fracking takes over.

+4

 

9

People who live near fracking are at increased risk of health problems ranging from birth defects to cancer.

+4

Items ranked higher than other factors

7

All fracking companies should be using some form of identification to reveal the precise chemical formulation they are pum** into the ground.

+3

 

19*

Fracking poses a huge threat to ecosystems.

+3

 

24#

Fracking can’t be made sustainable; it’s an unsustainable energy source.

+3

 

12

The fracking industry is learning their “craft” as they go and using my community as guinea pigs.

+2

 

16

The consistently high levels of fracking investment in political contributions and lobbying should worry all Pennsylvanians.

+2

 

22#

The whole planet is affected by the climate change induced by fracking.

+2

 

17

Fracking is subsidized by the government in far greater amounts than renewable fuels, which is where we should be focusing our money.

+1

 

20#

Fracking operations may result in increased erosion, altered chemical cycling, and reduced water levels.

+1

 

21

The fracking boom that began in Pennsylvania around 2008 has not generated enough jobs or money to make fracking worth it.

0

Items ranked lower than other factors

4

We are putting radioactive waste in a bunch of landfills in large quantities, and we don’t yet know the long-term danger of doing this.

+1

 

3

Much of the contamination associated with fracking is irreversible.

0

 

18

Rules requiring fracking operators to manage their air pollution are few and far between.

0

 

5

Foreclosure rates and abandonment levels increase in communities engaged in fracking.

−1

 

11

Pennsylvania is “simply not doing” studies into the possible health impacts of fracking.

−1

 

14#

Waste coming from fracking sites are highly radioactive and cancer rates have tripled in fracking areas.

−2

 

1

My property cannot be mortgaged or insured if fracking occurs in my community.

−3

 

10

I feel that if I don’t sign leases to my mineral rights and properties, I will just get bundled in with those who do, to make drilling more efficient.

−3

 

15*

Crime and social disagreement between residents will become worse if fracking enters my community.

−3

Least (−4)

13

The location of the fracking site is absolutely the most critical variable to my opposition.

−4

 

27

I don’t trust the fracking companies; they tried to have me sign a legal liability release.

−4

Other distinguishing statements

2#

Considering that the climate is already changing due to fossil fuel emissions, and that Pennsylvanians are increasingly feeling its effects, all fossil fuels need to stay in the ground.

+1

 

28#

The real solution is to ditch fossil fuels entirely.

−1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLaughlin, D.M., Cutts, B.B. Neither Knowledge Deficit nor NIMBY: Understanding Opposition to Hydraulic Fracturing as a Nuanced Coalition in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (USA). Environmental Management 62, 305–322 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1052-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1052-3

Keywords

Navigation