541
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

NIMBYs and partisans: how material interests and partisanship shape public response to shale gas development

References

  • Abramowitz, A.I. and Webster, S., 2016. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001
  • Arnold, G., Farrer, B., and Holahan, R., 2018. Measuring environmental and economic opinions about hydraulic fracturing: a survey of landowners in active or planned drilling units. Review of Policy Research, 35, 258–279. doi:10.1111/ropr.2018.35.issue-2
  • Arnold, G., Long, L.A.N., and Gottlieb, M., 2017. Social networks and policy entrepreneurship: how relationships shape municipal decision making about high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Policy Studies Journal, 45 (3), 414–441. doi:10.1111/psj.12175
  • Arnold, G. and Neupane, K.W., 2017. Determinants of pro-fracking measure adoption by New York southern tier municipalities. Review of Policy Research, 34 (2), 208–232. doi:10.1111/ropr.12212
  • Auyero, J., Hernandez, M., and Stitt, M.E., 2017. Grassroots activism in the belly of the beast: a relational account of the campaign against urban fracking in Texas. Social Problems, 66 (1), 28–50. doi:10.1093/socpro/spx035
  • Boudet, H., et al., 2014. ’Fracking’ controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57–67. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017
  • Boudet, H., et al., 2016. The effect of industry activities on public support for “fracking. Environmental Politics, 25 (4), 593–612. doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1153771
  • Boudet, H., et al., 2018. The effect of geographic proximity on unconventional oil and gas development on public support for hydraulic fracturing. Risk Analysis, 38 (9), 1871–1890. doi:10.1111/risa.12989
  • Broockman, D. and Kalla, J., 2016. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352, 220–225. doi:10.1126/science.aad9713
  • Bugden, D., Evensen, D., and Stedman, R., 2017. A drill by any other name: social representations, framing, and legacies of natural resource extraction in the fracking industry. Energy Research and Social Science, 29, 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.011
  • Clarke, C.E., et al., 2016. How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development. Energy Policy, 97, 301–309. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.032
  • Corral-Verdugo, V., 1997. Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behavior: self-reports vs observations of re-use and recycling behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17 (2), 135–145. doi:10.1006/jevp.1997.0048
  • Davis, C. and Fisk, J.M., 2014. Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Review of Policy Research, 31 (1), 1–16. doi:10.1111/ropr.12048
  • Devine-Wright, P., 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 19, 426–441. doi:10.1002/casp.1004
  • Dokshin, F.A., 2016. “Whose backyard and what’s at issue?: Spatial and ideological dynamics of local opposition to hydraulic fracturing in New York, 2010–2013. American Sociological Review, 81 (5), 921–948. doi:10.1177/0003122416663929
  • Dokshin, F.A. and Buday, A., 2018. Not in your backyard! Organizational structure, partisanship, and the mobilization of nonbeneficiary constituents against ‘fracking’ in Illinois, 2013–2014. Socius, 4, 237802311878347.
  • Esaiasson, P., 2014. NIMBYism—A re-examination of the phenomenon. Social Science Research, 48, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.005
  • Evensen, D. and Stedman, R., 2016. Scale matters: variation in perceptions of shale gas development across national, state, and local levels. Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 14–21. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.010
  • Farber, S., 1998. Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics, 24, 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00038-4
  • Gravelle, T.B. and Lachapelle, E., 2015. Politics, proximity and the pipeline: mapping public attitudes toward keystone XL. Energy Policy, 83, 99–108. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.04.004
  • Green, D., Palmquist, B., and Schickler, E., 2002. Partisan hearts and minds: political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
  • Heinze, G. and Schemper, M., 2002. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2409–2419. doi:10.1002/sim.1047
  • Hersh, E. and Ghitza, Y., 2018. Mixed partisan households and electoral participation in the United States. PLoS ONE, 13 (10), e0203997. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203997
  • Hersh, E.D., 2013. Long-term effect of September 11 on the political behavior of victims’ families and neighbors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (52), 20959–20963. doi:10.1073/pnas.1315043110
  • Hopkins, D.J., 2018. The increasingly United States: how and why American political behavior nationalized. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Hornsey, M.J., et al., 2016. Meta-analyses of the determinants of and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626. doi:10.1038/nclimate2943
  • Huddy, L. and Bankert, A., 2017. Political partisanship as a social identity. In: W.R. Thompson, ed. Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.250
  • Huddy, L., Mason, L., and Aarøe, L., 2015. Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109 (1), 1–17. doi:10.1017/S0003055414000604
  • Iyengar, S. and Westwood, S.J., 2015. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59 (3), 690–707. doi:10.1111/ajps.12152
  • Jackson, R.B., et al., 2014. The environmental costs and benefits of fracking. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 327–362. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051
  • Jacquet, J. and Stedman, R., 2011. Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York State: emerging benefits of collective natural resource management. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 26, 62–91.
  • Jacquet, J. and Stedman, R., 2014. The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 9, 1285–1304. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.820174
  • Jenkins-Smith, H.C., et al., 2011. Reversing nuclear opposition: evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis, 31 (4), 629–644. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x
  • Jerolmack, C. and Walker, E.T., 2018. Please in my backyard: quiet mobilization in support of fracking in an appalachian community. American Journal of Sociology, 124 (2), 479–516. doi:10.1086/698215
  • Kaplan, T., 2014. Citing health risks, cuomo bans fracking in New York State.New York Times, 17 December.
  • Kraft, M.C. and Clary, B.B., 1991. Citizen participation and the nimby syndrome. The Western Political Quarterly, 44 (2), 299–328. doi:10.2307/448780
  • Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D., 1996. The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15 (4), 601–622. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199623)15:4<>1.0.CO;2-P
  • Lawlor, A. and Gravelle, T.B., 2018. Framing trans-border energy transportation: the case of keystone XL. Environmental Politics, 27 (4), 666–685. doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1425106
  • Marble, W. and Nall, C., 2018. Where self-interest trumps ideology: liberal homeowners and local opposition to housing development. Working Paper, 22 October 2018.
  • Mason, L., 2018. Uncivil agreement: how politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mazur, A., 2016. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012? Public Understanding of Science, 25, 207–222.
  • Michaud, K., Carlisle, J., and Smith, E., 2008. Nimbyism vs. Environmentalism in attitudes toward energy development. Environmental Politics, 17 (1), 20–39. doi:10.1080/09644010701811459
  • Perrin, A.J. and McFarland, K., 2011. Social theory and public opinion. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 87–107. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102659
  • Schafft, K.A., et al., 2018. Busted amidst the boom: the creation of new insecurities and inequalities within pennsylvania’s shale gas boomtowns. Rural Sociology, 83 (3), 503–531. doi:10.1111/ruso.12196
  • Schively, C., 2007. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21 (3), 255–266. doi:10.1177/0885412206295845
  • Schussman, A. and Soule, S.A., 2005. Process and protest: accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84 (2), 1083–1108. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0034
  • Siena College Research Institute, 2011. Siena New York poll. [Crosstab files], 14 July 2011.
  • Tajfel, H., 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Trope, Y. and Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963
  • Vasi, I.B., et al., 2015. ’No fracking way!’: Media activism, discursive opportunities and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010–2013. American Sociological Review, 80 (5), 934–959. doi:10.1177/0003122415598534
  • Verba, S. and Nie, N.H., 1987. Participation in America: political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Wilber, T., 2012. Under the surface: fracking fortunes and the fate of the marcellus shale. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.