Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies

Nature Energy volume 8, pages 149–158 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Public opposition to new energy technology can harm the chances of successful deployment. Less is known about knock-on effects on the wider energy system, including whether such opposition impacts public perceptions of other technologies. Here we present a mixed-methods study into ‘perception spillover’, examining whether the controversy over fracking for oil and gas affects public attitudes to two novel low-carbon energy technologies: deep ‘enhanced’ geothermal systems and ‘green’ hydrogen. We argue that perception spillover is multi-faceted, and we conceptualize and test spontaneous, prompted and primed forms, examining how and why particular types occur. Using a nationally representative UK survey and two focus groups, we show that perception spillover from fracking could lead to widespread negative perceptions of deep geothermal energy, influencing the conditions that deep geothermal would be expected to meet. Conversely, a minority of participants expressed more positive perceptions of green hydrogen because they deemed it dissimilar to fracking.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Prompted spillover.
Fig. 2: Comparing types of spillover.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data from this study are available via the UK Data Service at https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-856047 (ref. 54). Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Special Report on Clean Energy Innovation (IEA, 2020).

  2. Boudet, H. S. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4, 446–455 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolsink, M. Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 287–295 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & Bürer, M. J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35, 2683–2691 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradshaw, M. & Waite, C. Learning from Lancashire: exploring the contours of the shale gas conflict in England. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 28–36 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Van de Graaf, T., Haesebrouck, T. & Debaere, P. Fractured politics? The comparative regulation of shale gas in Europe. J. Eur. Public Policy 25, 1276–1293 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rattle, I., Middlemiss, L. & Van Alstine, J. ‘Google fracking:’ the online information ecology of the English shale gas debate. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64, 101427 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas, M., Partridge, T., Harthorn, B. H. & Pidgeon, N. Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK. Nat. Energy 2, 17054 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomson, I. Commentary: understanding and managing public reaction to ‘fracking’. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 33, 266–270 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunsting, S., Rietkerk, M. & Mastop, J. Final Report on the Lessons Learned from Related Energy Technologies and on the Implications from These Lessons for Future Approaches to Shale Gas, Both for Public Engagement Activities as well as for Public Perceptions Research Technical Report No. ECN-O--15-049 (M4ShaleGas, 2017).

  11. Mattfeldt, A. Risk in discourses around fracking: a discourse linguistic perspective on the UK, the USA and Germany. J. Risk Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1881992 (2021).

  12. Graham, J. D., Rupp, J. A. & Schenk, O. Unconventional gas development in the USA: exploring the risk perception issues. Risk Anal. 35, 1770–1788 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Partridge, T., Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N. & Harthorn, B. H. Disturbed earth: conceptions of the deep underground in shale extraction deliberations in the US and UK. Environ. Values 28, 641–663 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harthorn, B. H. et al. Health risk perception and shale development in the UK and US. Health Risk Soc. 21, 35–56 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R. & Curtis, S. Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding Sci. 26, 89–104 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cox, E., Royston, S. & Selby, J. From exports to exercise: how non-energy policies affect energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 55, 179–188 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cuppen, E. et al. When controversies cascade: analysing the dynamics of public engagement and conflict in the Netherlands and Switzerland through ‘controversy spillover’. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, 101593 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Scheer, D., Konrad, W. & Scheel, O. Public evaluation of electricity technologies and future low-carbon portfolios in Germany and the USA. Energy Sustain. Soc. 3, 8 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ashworth, P., Muriuki, G. & Jeanneret, T. Understanding Australian attitudes to low carbon energy technologies. Energy Proc. 63, 6991–6998 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Einsiedel, E. F., Boyd, A. D., Medlock, J. & Ashworth, P. Assessing socio-technical mindsets: public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change. Energy Policy 53, 149–158 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scheer, D., Konrad, W. & Wassermann, S. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: a qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany. Energy Policy 100, 89–100 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R. & Burnkrant, R. E. The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect of marketing communications. J. Market. Res. 38, 458–470 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Janakiraman, R., Sismeiro, C. & Dutta, S. Perception spillovers across competing brands: a disaggregated model of how and when. J. Market. Res. 46, 467–481 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roehm, M. L. & Tybout, A. M. When will a brand scandal spill over, and how should competitors respond? J. Market. Res. 43, 366–373 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Trump, R. K. & Newman, K. P. When do unethical brand perceptions spill over to competitors? Market. Lett. 28, 219–230 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cogn. Psychol. 3, 430–454 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. F. & DeVries, N. K. How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Anal. 27, 715–727 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gough, C., Cunningham, R. & Mander, S. Understanding key elements in establishing a social license for CCS: an empirical approach. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 68, 16–25 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cox, E., Pidgeon, N. & Spence, E. But they told us it was safe! Carbon dioxide removal, fracking, and ripple effects in risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 42, 1472–1487 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marris, C. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep. 2, 545–548 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. K. & Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

  32. BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker (BEIS, 2021).

  33. Dickie, J., Watson, E. & Napier, H. Evaluating the Relationship Between Public Perception, Engagement and Attitudes Towards Underground Energy Technologies (British Geological Survey, 2020).

  34. de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D. & Faaij, A. P. C. Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 322–332 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. & Poortinga, W. Climate change or nuclear power—no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 69–85 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cousse, J., Trutnevyte, E. & Hahnel, U. J. J. Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance. Energy Policy 158, 112547 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Heinemann, N. et al. Enabling large-scale hydrogen storage in porous media—the scientific challenges. Energy Environ. Sci. 14, 853–864 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Devine-Wright, P. et al. Induced seismicity or political ploy?: using a novel mix of methods to identify multiple publics and track responses over time to shale gas policy change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 81, 102247 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stedman, R. C., Evensen, D., O’Hara, S. & Humphrey, M. Comparing the relationship between knowledge and support for hydraulic fracturing between residents of the United States and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20, 142–148 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Evensen, D., Devine-Wright, P. & Whitmarsh, L. UK National Survey of Public Attitudes Towards Shale Gas Research Brief UKUH 01 (UKUH, 2019).

  41. Ryder, S. S., Devine-Wright, P. & Evensen, D. Briefing: Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Exploration in the UK; A Summary of Research, 2012–2020 (UKUH, 2020).

  42. Renn, O. in The Social Amplification of Risk (eds Pidgeon, N. et al.) 374–401 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

  43. Akin, H. et al. Are attitudes toward labeling nano products linked to attitudes toward GMO? Exploring a potential ‘spillover’ effect for attitudes toward controversial technologies. J. Responsible Innov. 6, 50–74 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Giardini, D. Geothermal quake risks must be faced. Nature 462, 848–849 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Im, D.-H., Chung, J.-B., Kim, E.-S. & Moon, J.-W. Public perception of geothermal power plants in Korea following the Pohang earthquake: a social representation theory study. Public Underst. Sci. 30, 724–739 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fischhoff, B. & Fischhoff, I. Publics’ opinions about biotechnologies. AgBioForum 4, 155–162 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lambert, C. E. & McComas, K. A. Public attitudes towards enhanced geothermal heating: the role of place, community, and visions of energy futures. GRC Trans. 44, 691–701 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Geothermal Energy British Geological Survey https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projects/geothermal-energy/ (2022).

  49. Deep Geothermal Energy: Economic Decarbonisation Opportunities for the United Kingdom (Arup, 2021).

  50. Geoscience and the Hydrogen Economy (The Geological Society, 2021).

  51. Davies, R. Fracking is over in the UK. What have we learnt? Newcastle Univ. https://from.ncl.ac.uk/fracking-is-over-in-the-uk-what-have-we-learnt (2021).

  52. Ryedale gas wells could be re-purposed for geothermal power. BBC News (24 May 2022).

  53. Qualtrics. Online Survey Software (Qualtrics, 2021).

  54. Cox, E. Perception spillover from fracking. UK Data Service https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-856047 (2022).

  55. Corner, A., Parkhill, K. A. & Pidgeon, N. ‘Experiment Earth?’ Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering. Working paper, Cardiff Univ. (2011); http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/82861/

  56. Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N. & Vaughan, N. E. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Prolific (Prolific, 2021).

  58. Dunlap, R., Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. & Jones, R. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. & Lorenzoni, I. Public perceptions of energy choices: the influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy Environ. 21, 385–407 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Whitmarsh, L. et al. UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl. Energy 160, 419–430 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15, 625–632 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) as part of the ‘UK Unconventional Hydrocarbons’ (UKUH) project (flexible fund grant BH174225-SP03) and by the research programme of the UK Energy Research Centre (supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, grant EP/5029575/1). We are grateful to R. Brown, M. Bradshaw and the UKUH team for supporting early-career researchers. We thank O. King, M. Rohse, P. Devine-Wright and P. MacNaghten for their comments and insights and A. Fraser, D. Manning, M. Blunt, A.M.Guati Rojo, C. Dunhill, M. Newberry and A. Valera-Medina for assistance with study materials. Thanks also to C. Demski, N. Pidgeon, L. Whitmarsh, W. Poortinga and K. Bell for enabling us to work on this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Understanding Risk Group, Department of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Steve Westlake, Conor H. D. John & Emily Cox

  2. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Emily Cox

Authors
  1. Steve Westlake
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Conor H. D. John
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily Cox
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.W. wrote the original draft, designed and facilitated the workshops and analysed the qualitative and quantitative data. C.H.D.J. wrote the original draft, designed the survey and analysed the qualitative and quantitative data. E.C. wrote the post-review draft, assisted with research design and analysis and acquired funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Cox.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks Darrick Evensen, Robert Görsch, Linda Steg and Maarten Wolsink for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Notes 1–5.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data for Fig. 1: prompted spillover.

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data for Fig. 2: comparing types of spillover.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Westlake, S., John, C.H.D. & Cox, E. Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies. Nat Energy 8, 149–158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01178-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01178-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing