1

Running head: CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”

Connotation of “Fracking” as Predicted by Opinions on the Effects of Economy, Public Health,

and the Environment

Cori Elsesser

Northern Illinois University

 2
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
Connotation of “Fracking” as Predicted by Opinions on the Effects of Economy, Public Health,

and the Environment

Although hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” as it is commonly known has been used for

more than six decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016) it has

only recently been used to produce a significant portion of crude oil in the United States. In

2000, fracking made up approximately 2% of the United States crude oil production. By 2015,

over 50% of crude oil production in the United States was from fracking. That is approximately

4.3 million barrels a day from 300,000 hydraulically fractured wells. Despite this sharp increase

in fracking, it remains a controversial and politicized issue with benefits and consequences.

In the general population, “fracking” can have two different meanings. First is the

technical definition:

A technique for tapping unconventional oil and gas reserves that are otherwise

inaccessible … [by] drilling horizontally through a rock layer and injecting a

pressurized mixture of water, sand, and other chemicals that fractures the rock and

facilitates the flow of oil and gas. [Boudet et al., 2014, p. 58].

The second definition is more general and refers to the entire production process of making

crude oil from rock using unconventional oil and gas technologies including “clearing the land

for well pads; construction of access roads and ancillary infrastructures; transporting and

processing fossil fuels extracted; transporting millions of gallons of water and wastewater for

treatment/disposal; and bringing in large populations to a community” (p. 58).

No matter how one defines “fracking,” it has effects on the economy, environment, and

public health. Economically, fracking can help with job creation in local economies and effect
 3
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
energy prices from the increased usage of comparatively cheaper natural gas as well as natural

gas exporting (Clarke et al., 2015). Therefore, fracking generates economic benefits. On the

other hand, fracking has negative consequences for the environment and public health.

Environmentally, fracking creates land use disturbances from well drilling and operations which

increases the risk of earthquakes; contamination of ground and surface water via drilling,

wastewater disposal, hydraulic fracturing, and other processes; and has implications for climate

change with the creation of greenhouse gasses. In terms of public health, fracking can expose the

public to toxic chemicals and heavy metals as well as physical and psychological stress

associated with living near industrial activity. Therefore fracking is not a straight forward issue

but is instead argued over by proponents and opponents.

The literature shows some trends about the public’s opinions on fracking, most

noticeably that the public either lacks an opinion or is equally divided between support and

opposition. Boudet et al. (2014) demonstrates in a nationally representative U.S. sample (N =

1061) that the American populace is largely unaware of and undecided about the issue of

fracking. In fact, over half of those surveyed had heard nothing or a little about it. Also, more

than half of those surveyed did not know or were undecided about whether to support or oppose

fracking. Of the respondents who had an opinion, it was nearly split evenly between opposition

and support. Using hierarchical multiple regression, the authors discovered that opponents

tended to be women, hold egalitarian worldviews, read newspapers more than once a week, are

more familiar with fracking, and referenced environmental impacts associated with fracking. On

the other hand, those in support of fracking tended to be older, hold a bachelor’s degree or

higher, are politically conservative, watch TV for news more than once a week, and referenced

economic or energy supply impacts associated with fracking. Borick and Clarke (2016) showed
 4
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
similar results. Only about one quarter of Americans reported hearing a ‘great deal’ or ‘good

amount’ about natural gas development using fracking, with the majority reporting that they had

heard little or nothing. Americans’ support is also divided with about one third supporting it and

slightly more than one third opposing it. The fact that about a third of the American public lacks

an opinion about this politically contentious issue is worrisome.

In a follow up study Boudet, Bugden, Zanocco, and Maibach (2016) looked at if

extractive industry activities affect support/opposition toward fracking. The extractive industry

activities investigated included: “historical activity in the form of physical presence of oil and

gas wells; county-level employment in the natural resources and mining sector; residence in an

area experiencing active oil and gas development; and residence in a county with active oil

and/or gas production” (p. 7). The findings regarding the relationship between industry activities

and support/opposition toward fracking were mixed. Historical activity and residence in a county

with active production were not significantly related to support/opposition of fracking. However,

measures of current and change in county-level employment in the natural gas and mining sector

as well as residence in an area experiencing active development was significantly related to

support/opposition of fracking. Both variables showed a positive relationship with support.

Therefore in areas where there is high employment in the sector and active development were

more likely to support fracking. Therefore, location does play a key role in determining

support/opposition to fracking.

Since many Americans do not have clear opinions about fracking, Christenson, Goldfarb,

and Kriner (2017) conducted an experiment investigating how the framing of fracking influenced

participants’ support/opposition toward fracking. The experimental design consisted of four

conditions. In all conditions participants were given a brief definition of fracking. The control
 5
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
group received no further information. Subjects in the first treatment group received information

about both the economic and environmental benefits. The second treatment group received

information about only environmental costs while the third treatment group received information

only about economic benefits. After the prompts, respondents were asked if they support or

oppose fracking. The authors found that the control group offered a baseline of 31% support. The

third group who received economic benefits of fracking only were significantly more likely to

support fracking based on an ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. The first group who received

information about both economic and environmental benefits as well as the second group who

only received environmental costs did not significantly differ from the control. These results

imply that the American public can be influenced in their support of fracking by the type of

information given.

In another experimental study on framing, Clarke et al. (2015) explored how two

commonly used terms to describe unconventional oil and gas extraction serve as issue frames

and influence public support/opposition. This was done by using a split-ballot, nationally

representative, random telephone survey (N = 1000). About half the sample answered questions

with the term ‘fracking’ while the other half answered identical questions with the term ‘shale oil

or gas development.’ The results showed that fracking elicited significantly more negative top-

of-mind associations, was associated significantly with environmental degradation and water

contamination, significantly perceived more risks than benefits, and were significantly more

likely to oppose the issue. On the other hand shale oil or gas development elicited significantly

more positive top-of-mind associations, was significantly associated with economic benefits like

job creation, significantly perceived more benefits than risks, and were likely to support the

issue. Overall, this study shows that fracking and shale oil or gas development are loaded terms.
 6
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
The literature illustrates that the American public lacks knowledge about fracking, can be

influenced on their opinion about fracking depending on framing, and that fracking is considered

a negative term. This study’s purpose is to investigate if opinions about the effect of fracking on

the economy, public health, and the environment have predictive power over whether “fracking”

is considered a positive or negative term. Thereby the research question is: Do opinions about the

effect of fracking on the economy, public health, and the environment have predictive power

over whether “fracking” is considered a positive or negative term?

H0: The coefficients of the predictors equal zero.

H1: The coefficients of the predictors do not equal zero.

Methodology

The current study uses a data set from the National Surveys on Energy and the

Environment conducted by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research

(Rabe & Borick, 2015). While the data set includes data from both the fall 2008 and fall 2015,

only the data from the fall of 2015 is considered in the present study. In the fall of 2015, 911

adults across the United States participated in the telephone survey conducted by the Muhlenberg

College Institute of Public Opinion using the Institute’s Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing

system. The phone numbers were randomly selected by the Marketing Systems Group. “The Fall

2015 survey included longitudinal questions about belief in climate change, plus additional

content related to the Clean Power Plan, Pope Francis' encyclical and the role of religion in

environmental issues, and more” (Rabe & Borick, 2015, p. 2). Questions about fracking are used

from this data set in a logistic regression analyses.

 7
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
The three independent variables came from this block of questions: “For each of the

aspects of life in the United States that I mention please indicate if you think the use of hydraulic

fracturing is having a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect. First:…” The respondents

were then given in a rotated list the “aspects of life in the United States” including the economy,

public health, and the environment, which are the categorical independent variables. Answers

available for each of these aspects included “positive effect,” “negative effect,” and “no effect”.

However, participants could volunteer answers of “not sure” and “refused.” For the purpose of

this study, those respondents who answered one or more of the aspects with a volunteered

response were excluded from the analyses.

The dependent variable came from the question asking, “In general when you hear the

word ‘fracking’ do you consider it a positive or negative term?” While the available responses

included only “positive” and “negative,” some participants once again volunteered answers

including “Neutral/Neither,” “Not sure,” and “Refused.” As with the independent variables,

respondents who volunteered an answer are excluded from the present study. Thereby the

outcome variable is a dichotomous, discrete, and nominal as appropriate for logistic regression.

Using listwise deletion, the sample size consisted of 462 which is 50.7% of the original sample.

The analyses conducted for this study was logistical regression in which a categorical

outcome is predicted based on continuous and categorical predictors. This analyses was chosen

because the outcome variable was not only categorical but binary and all the predictor variables

were categorical.

Before the data set was analyzed, the data was screened to look for outliers and to check

the model’s assumptions using SPSS. The data was screened by looking for influential cases

with Cook’s distances greater than one. Also, the standardized residuals were examined to look
 8
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
for outliers greater than three and less than negative three. In terms of model assumptions, all

assumptions were met. The cases were independent and since all the predictor variables were

categorical the linearity assumption does not apply. The assumption of multicollinearity was

checked using tolerance values, VIF values, and collinearity diagnostics. All tolerance values

were greater than 0.1, all VIF values were less than ten, and all collinearity diagnostics were less

than 0.9. Therefore the assumption of multicollinearity was met. After the data was screened and

model assumptions were met logistic regression was run in SPSS.

Results

Data screening results indicated that there were no cases where the Cook’s distance was

greater than one but there were five cases where the standardized residuals were less than

negative three (no cases were greater than positive three) and therefore were influential. These

five cases where subsequently not included in the analyses making the final sample size 457

cases including 259 or 56.7% males and 198 or 43.3% females.

Table 1 shows the frequencies of the independent variables including that the mode for

“economy” was positive effect, the mode for “public health” was negative effect, and the mode

for “environment” was negative effect. For the dependent variable, 131 cases or 28.7% found

“fracking” to be a positive term while 326 cases or 71.3% found it to be a negative term. This

strengthens the case for logistic regression because the number of cases in the smallest group,

“fracking” is a positive term, is ten times the number of predictors or three.

 9
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
Table 1
Frequencies of Independent Variables
Economy Public Health Environment
Effect Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Positive Effect 270 59.1 45 9.8 60 13.1
Negative Effect 156 34.1 293 64.1 323 70.7
No Effect 31 6.8 119 26.0 74 16.2

The final model:

ln ( odds of fracking being a negative term )=−.338+−1.738 ( economy positve effect ) +.335 ( economy negative effect
This model fits significantly better than the intercept only model based on the omnibus

tests of model coefficients (χ2(6) = 281.843, p<.001) and the Hosmer and Lemeshnow Test (χ2(5)

= 4.296, p = .508). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Specifically, the model correctly

classified 88% of the cases with “fracking” being a negative term being classified correctly more

often at 93.3% than “fracking” being a positive term at 74.8%.

All the main predictors, fracking effects on economy, public health, and the environment,

were significant with p < .001. Table 2 shows odds ratio and the 95% confidence intervals for

each predictor in the equation. For fracking effects on economy, the odds of responding

“negative effect” was not significantly different from responding “no effect.” However those

who thought fracking had a “positive effect” on the economy were 5.682 times more likely to

view fracking as a positive term compared to “no effect” respondents. The odds of responding

with “positive effects” on public health were not significantly different from “no effect.” On the

other hand those who thought fracking had a “negative effect” on public health were 5.414 times

more likely to view fracking as a negative term compared to “no effect” respondents. Results for

the environment are similar, with the odds of responding “positive effects” not differing from

“no effect” but with those who view fracking as having a “negative effect” on the environment

being 14.425 times more likely to view fracking as a negative term compared to “no effect”
 10
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
respondents. These results are based on the 95% C.I. not including one for significant differences

from no effect.

Table 2
Odds Ratio and 95% C.I.
95% C.I. for EXP(B)
Predictor Exp(B) Lower Upper
Economy positive effect .176 .053 .578
Economy negative effect 1.398 .277 7.055
Public Health positive effect .727 .266 1.992
Public Health negative effect 5.414 2.510 11.675
Environment positive effect 2.005 .696 5.778
Environment negative effect 14.425 6.022 34.557

Discussion

The findings support the literature in two main ways. First, a large portion of the

American public lacks a definitive opinion on fracking (Boudet et al., 2014; Borkick & Clarke,

2016). This conclusion is supported by the current analyses because approximately half of the

original sample had to be excluded from analyses due to respondents volunteering an answer to

at least one of the three predictor variables or the outcome variable. Second, the current findings

support Clarke et al. (2015) conclusion that “fracking” is considered a negative term by the

majority of the public.

It is interesting to note that for each of the main predictor variables, only one of

categories, either “positive effect” or “negative effect,” differed significantly from the reference

category of “no effect.” The category that varied significantly from “no effect” matched the

effects of fracking found in the real world. For example, fracking has been found to have positive

effects on the economy and therefore “positive effect” was significantly different from the

reference category. “Negative effects” was significantly different from the reference category for
 11
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
public health and the environment and in the real world fracking has been found to have negative

effects on public health and the environment. The fact that two of the three predictor variables

have negative effects in real life helps explain why fracking is considered most often a negative

term. It can be argued that two negatives outweigh the one positive thereby making fracking

negative.

One limitation of the current study is the order the questions were asked during the

collection of the original data set. The predictor variables were asked before the outcome

variable. As previously stated two of the predictor variables has a negative effect in real life

while one of the predictor variable has a positive effect in real life. By asking to rate these effects

prior to stating fracking as a positive or negative term could prime the respondents towards

saying fracking is a negative term. This limitation was minimized however by the predictor

variables being asked to rate the effects using the full name of hydraulic fracturing.

Due to the political nature of fracking, future studies would be wise to control for both

political party affiliation and political beliefs like conservative, moderate, or liberal. It should

also be confirmed that viewing fracking as a positive or negative term is correlated to supporting

or opposing fracking because as found in Clarke et al. (2015) those who hear fracking instead of

shale oil and gas development are more likely to oppose the issue. In other words, non-loaded

terms should be used in the predictor variables to confirm the outcome variable.
 12
CONNOTATION OF “FRACKING”
References

Borick, C. & Clarke, C. (2016). American views on fracking: A report from the national surveys

on energy and environment. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 28, 1-9.

Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Mailbach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014).

“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using natural survey data to understand

public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57-67.

Boudet, H., Bugden, D., Zanocco, C., & Mailbach, E. (2016). The effect of industry activities on

public support for ‘fracking.’ Environmental Politics, 1-20.

Christenson, D.P., Goldfarb, J.L., & Kriner, D.L. (2017). Costs, benefits, and the malleability of

public support for “fracking.” Energy Policy, 105, 407-417.

Clarke, C.E., Hart, P.S., Schuldt, J.P., Evensen, D.T.N., Boudet, H.S., Jacquet, J.B., Stedman,

R.C. (2015). Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-

of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy, 81, 131-140.

Rabe, B., & Borick, C. (2015). National surveys on energy and the environment, fall 2008 and

fall 2015 [Data file]. Retrieved from icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/36368

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). Hydraulic fracturing accounts for about half of

current U.S. crude oil production. Today in Energy. Retrieved from

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25372