Contrasting Public and Scientific Assessments of Fracking

Abstract

This paper examines whether public perceptions of the claimed advantages and disadvantages of fracking are consistent with an evidence-based assessment of the claimed advantages and disadvantages. Public assessments are obtained from an internet-based opinion survey in 2014 in six states: California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The survey presented eleven advantages and eleven disadvantages of fracking derived from local media stories, from advocacy claims made by pro- or anti-fracking groups, and from think tank pieces. Then the respondents were asked to indicate their feelings about how important each claimed advantage and disadvantage was to their support of/opposition to fracking. Scientific assessments regarding the same claims are compiled from available peer-reviewed literature and evidence-based reviews. We classify each claim as either (a) supported by the weight of the available evidence, (b) not supported by the weight of the available evidence, or (c) there is inadequate evidence to assess it. We find less consistency with respect to the disadvantages than advantages. Respondents perceive four disadvantages out of eleven as extremely important while there is inadequate evidence to assess them or the available evidence does not support them. Our comparison has interesting implications for understanding the controversy about fracking.