Table 3 Factors predicting support for changing the limit of seismicity allowed for shale gas extraction (linear regressions).

From: Effect of linguistic framing and information provision on attitudes towards induced seismicity and seismicity regulation

 

0.5 to 1.5 ML (wave 1)

R2 = 0.31

0.5 to 2.7 ML (wave)

R2 = 0.63

‘How negative would you feel about an earthquake in your local area caused by shale gas extraction, which you could feel but that caused no damage?’

 − 0.31**

 − 0.49**

Likelihood that tremors will cause damage at the surface

 − 0.08**

 − 0.12**

How much read/heard about earth tremors linked to shale gas extraction

 − 0.03

 − 0.04

Objective numeracy (number correct of three items)

 − 0.04

 − 0.07**

Subjective numeracy (mean of three items)

0.00

0.06

Trust in industry groups or firms

0.11**

0.12**

‘Extraction is likely to have a big impact on people like me’

 − 0.10**

 − 0.04

‘The public needs to have a voice in decisions such as approving or refusing an application for a shale gas well.’

 − 0.14**

 − 0.17**

Perceived seriousness of climate change (mean of 4 items)

 − 0.03

–0.11**

  1. NB: Numbers in the cells are standardised beta coefficients. A positive coefficient indicates the variable associates with increased support for the policy change. Bold coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.05. With one asterisk (*), p < 0.01; with two asterisks (**), p < 0.001. Independent variables measuring objective numeracy, subjective numeracy, and need for public voice come from wave 1 (April 2019) for both regressions; the other six independent variables were measured in both surveys.
Back to article page