Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale

  • Published:
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What first comes to mind when you think of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale region? The information and ideas we hold about shale gas development can strongly influence our discussion of this issue, the impacts we associate with it, and the types of regulation we view as appropriate. Our knowledge and beliefs are based in part on social representations—common sense understandings of complex, often scientific, phenomena, generated in the public sphere and reliant on the history, culture, and social structure of the context in which they emerge. In this article, we examine social representations of environmental, economic, and social impacts of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale, as reported by major regional newspapers. We conducted a content analysis of newspaper coverage in two newspapers in the northern tier of Pennsylvania and two in the southern tier of New York from 2007 to 2011, with a total sample of 1,037 articles. Effects on water quality were by far the most prevalent environmental representation in each newspaper. Economic representations focused on jobs, leases, and royalties, but varied substantially across geographical contexts. Representations of social impacts were relatively rare in each media outlet. We also interviewed the journalists who wrote the most articles on shale gas development at each newspaper. Their perspectives provide some explanations for why certain impacts were mentioned more frequently than others, and for differences between newspapers. We conclude with implications for communicating about impacts associated with shale gas development, and for regulating development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Total daily circulation (M–F) for the newspapers: Binghamton Press and Sun Bulletin—34,111; Elmira Star-Gazette—15,181; Scranton Times-Tribune—47,663; Williamsport Sun-Gazette—22,795 (Audit Bureau of Circulations, June 2012)

  2. Appendix 1 presents a list of all impacts mentioned at least once.

  3. A Riffe’s Z test for differences in proportions reveals that Williamsport (W, from here forward) mentioned environmental impacts significantly less than all the other papers (z scores of −5.51, −3.57, and −2.92 for comparisons with Binghamton [B], Elmira [E], and Scranton [S]; p < 0.001 for all three pairwise comparisons). Riffe’s Z for economic impacts at S compared to B, E, and W: −4.96, −5.41, −3.11 (p < 0.001 for all)

  4. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: 0.97 (nonsignificant [NS]), 1.70 (p < 0.05), 2.55 (p < 0.01)

  5. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: −3.81 (p < 0.001), −2.83 (p < 0.001), and −2.45 (p < 0.01)

  6. Riffe’s Z for B, compared to S and W: 3.99 and 4.36 (p < 0.001 for both); Riffe’s Z for E, compared to S and W: 3.44 and 3.79 (p < 0.001 for both); NS z statistics between B and E (0.47) and between S and W (0.32)

  7. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S on jobs: 3.05 (p < 0.001), 2.13 (p < 0.01), and 4.76 (p < 0.001); Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S on local business: 3.81 (p < 0.001), 2.46 (p < 0.01), and 3.86 (p < 0.001)

  8. Riffe’s Z for B, compared to S and W: 4.81 (p < 0.001) and 2.42 (p < 0.01); Riffe’s Z for E, compared to S and W: 2.85 (p < 0.001) and 1.10 (NS)

  9. Riffe’s Z for B, compared to S and W: 4.85 and 6.99 (p < 0.001 for both); Riffe’s Z for E, compared to S and W: 5.00 and 7.09 (p < 0.001 for both)

  10. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S on roads/infrastructure: 1.30 (NS), 2.77 (p < 0.001), and 2.84 (p < 0.001); Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S on traffic: 0.86 (NS), 0.41 (NS), 1.87 (p < 0.05)

  11. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: −4.18 (p < 0.001), −3.39 (p < 0.001), and −0.96 (NS)

  12. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: −2.32 (p < 0.01), −2.28 (p < 0.01), −1.91 (p < 0.05)

  13. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: 3.27, 3.26, and 3.29 (p < 0.001 for all)

  14. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: −1.81 (p < 0.05), −1.30 (NS) and −1.32 (NS)

  15. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: 3.67, 4.83, and 5.55 (p < 0.001 for all)

  16. Riffe’s Z for W, compared to B, E, and S: −3.43, −5.23, and −6.29 (p < 0.001 for all)

  17. Riffe’s Z for S, compared to B, E, and W on negative economic impacts: 2.53 (p < 0.01), 2.51 (p < 0.01), and 3.13 (p < 0.001); Riffe’s Z for S, compared to B, E, and W on neutral economic impacts: 2.70 (p < 0.001), 0.76 (NS), and 6.29 (p < 0.001)

  18. Riffe’s Z for S compared to B, E, and W: −2.11 (p < 0.01), −1.03 (NS), and −5.55 (p < 0.001)

  19. Riffe’s Z for B, compared to S and W: 1.05 (NS) and 1.46 (NS); Riffe’s Z for E, compared to S and W: 1.69 (p < 0.05) and 2.16 (p < 0.01)

  20. Riffe’s Z for B, compared to S and W: −3.50 and −3.01 (p < 0.001 for both); Riffe’s Z for E, compared to S and W: −3.46 and −2.98 (p < 0.001 for both)

References

  • Bearer S, Nicholas E, Gagnolet T, DePhilip M, Moberg T, Johnson N (2012) Evaluating the scientific support of conservation best management practices for shale gas extraction in the Appalachian Basin. Environ Pract 14:308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billig M (1993) Studying the thinking society: social representations, rhetoric, and attitudes. In: Breakwell GM, Canter DV (eds) Empirical approaches to social representations. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 39–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Blohm A, Peichel J, Smith C, Kougentakis A (2012) The significance of regulation and land use patterns on natural gas resource estimates in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Policy 50:358–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasier KJ, Filteau MR, McLaughlin DK, Jacquet J, Stedman RC, Kelsey TW et al (2011) Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. J Rural Soc Sci 26:32–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Cathles LM III, Brown L, Taam M, Hunter A (2012) A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. Clim Chang 113:525–535

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christopherson S, Rightor N (2011) How shale gas extraction affects drilling localities: lessons for regional and city policy makers. J Town City Manag 2:1–20, online

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark CE, Burnham AJ, Harto CB, Horner RM (2012) The technology and policy of hydraulic fracturing and potential environmental impacts of shale gas development. Environ Prac 14:249–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke C, Evensen D, Jacquet J, Stedman R (2012) Emerging risk communication challenges associated with shale gas development. Eur J Risk Regul 3:424–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Clémence A (2001) Social positioning and social representations. In: Deaux K, Philogène G (eds) Representations of the social: bridging theoretical traditions. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 83–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M (2011) Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17:1039–1056

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JB, Robinson GR (2012) A geographic model to assess and limit cumulative ecological degradation from Marcellus Shale exploitation in New York, USA. Ecol Soc 17(2):25

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaux K, Philogène G (eds) (2001) Representations of the social: bridging theoretical traditions. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright P (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 19:426–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright P, Howes Y (2010) Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J Environ Psychol 30:271–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drohan PJ, Brittingham M, Bishop J, Yoder K (2012) Early trends in landowner change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the north central Appalachians. Environ Manag 49:1061–1075

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evensen D, Clarke C (2012) Efficacy information in media coverage of infectious disease risks: an ill predicament? Sci Commun 34:392–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel ML, Law A (2011) The rush to drill for natural gas: a public health cautionary tale. Am J Public Health 101:784–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frac Tracker (2013) New York Maps. Available at: http://www.fractracker.org/maps-broken/new-york-maps/. Accessed 30 Mar 2013

  • Gillen JL, Kiviat E (2012) Hydraulic fracturing threats to species with restricted geographic ranges in the Eastern United States. Environ Pract 14:320–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzenbuhler H, Centner TJ (2012) Regulation of water pollution from hydraulic fracturing in horizontally-drilled wells in the Marcellus Shale region, USA. Water 4:983–994

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hou D, Luo J, Al-Tabbaa A (2012) Shale gas can be a double-edged sword for climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2:385–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth RW, Santoro R, Ingraffea A (2011) Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim Chang 106:679–690

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet J, Stedman RC (2011) Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York state: emerging benefits of collective natural resource management. J Rural Soc Sci 26:62–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenner S, Lamadrid AJ (2013) Shale gas vs. coal: policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. Energy Policy 53:442–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnaman TC (2011) The economic impact of shale gas extraction: a review of existing studies. Ecol Econ 70:1243–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauver L (2012) Environmental health advocacy: an overview of natural gas drilling in northeast Pennsylvania and implications for pediatric nursing. J Pediatr Nurs 27:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney KO, Yoxtheimer DA (2012) Production and disposal of waste materials from gas and oil extraction from the Marcellus Shale play in Pennsylvania. Environ Pract 14:278–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell AL, Casman EA (2011) Economic incentives and regulatory framework for shale gas well site reclamation in Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 45:9506–9514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitka M (2012) Rigorous evidence slim for determining health risks from natural gas fracking. J the Am Med Assoc (JAMA) 307:2135–2136

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S (2001) In: Duveen G (ed) Social representations: explorations in social psychology. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers T (2012) Potential contaminant pathways from hydraulically fractured shale to aquifers. Ground Water 50:872–882

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newell A (1994) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) (2013) High volume hydraulic fracturing proposed regulations. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html. Accessed 25 Jul 2013

  • Olaguer EP (2012) The potential near-source ozone impacts of upstream oil and gas industry emissions. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 62:966–977

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:8172–8176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins ND (2012) The fracturing of place: the regulation of Marcellus Shale development and the subordination of local experience. Fordham Environ Law Rev 23(2):44–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry SL (2012a) Addressing the societal costs of unconventional oil and gas exploration and production: a framework for evaluation short-term, future, and cumulative risks and uncertainties of hydrofracking. Environ Pract 14:352–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry SL (2012b) Development, land use, and collective trauma: the Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Culture, Agric Food Environ 34:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2006) Online papers modestly boost newspaper readership. http://people-press.org/report/282/online-papers-modestly-boost-newspaper-readership. Retrieved March 17, 2013

  • Purkhardt SC, Stockdale JE (1993) Multidimensional scaling as a technique for the exploration and description of a social representation. In: Breakwell GM, Canter DV (eds) Empirical approaches to social representations. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 272–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahm BG, Riha SJ (2012) Toward strategic management of shale gas development: regional, collective impacts on water resources. Environ Sci Pol 17:12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozell DJ, Reaven SJ (2012) Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale. Risk Anal 32:1382–1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider RO (2012) Hydraulic fracturing and the need for risk assessment. J Emerg Manag 10:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafft KA, Borlu Y, Glenna L (2013) The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociology 78:143–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard SE (2013) Wildcatting: a stripper’s guide to the modern American boomtown. BuzzFeed. http://www.buzzfeed.com/susanelizabethshepard/wildcatting-a-strippers-guide-to-the-modern-american-boomtow. Retrieved July 29, 2013

  • Smith DR, Snyder CD, Hitt NP, Young JA, Faulkner SP (2012) Shale gas development and brook trout: scaling best management practices to anticipate cumulative effects. Environ Pract 14:366–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith N, Joffe H (2012) How the public engages with global warming: a social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science. (published online before print at: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/29/0963662512440913.full.pdf+html, June 1, 2012)

  • Stedman R, Jacquet J, Filteau M, Willits F, Brasier K, McLaughlin D (2012) Marcellus Shale gas development and new boomtown research: views of New York and Pennsylvania residents. Environ Pract 14:382–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Energy Information Administration (2012) Annual energy outlook 2012. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasterman P, Yzermans CJ, Dirkzwager AJE (2005) The role of the media and media hypes in the aftermath of disasters. Epidemiol Rev 27:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner W, Hayes N (2005) Everyday discourse and common sense: the theory of social representations. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner NR, Jackson RB, Darrah TH, Osborn SG, Down A, Zhao K et al (2012) Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:11961–11966

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weber CL, Clavin C (2012) Life cycle carbon footprint of shale gas: review of evidence and implications. Environ Sci Technol 46:5688–5695

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weber JG (2012) The effects of a natural gas boom on employment and income in Colorado, Texas, and Wyoming. Energy Econ 34:1580–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weltman-Fahs M, Taylor JM (2013) Hydraulic fracturing and Brook trout habitat in the Marcellus Shale region: potential impacts and research needs. Fisheries 38:4–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilber T (2012) Under the surface: fracking, fortunes, and the fate of the Marcellus Shale. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber T (2013) Cuomo’s reported fracking stance too vague for meaning; things to watch include Senate bill 4046; Pa. health study. [Web log comment]. http://tomwilber.blogspot.com/. Accessed 21 Mar 2013

  • Wilson JM, VanBriesen JM (2012) Oil and gas produced water management and surface drinking water sources in Pennsylvania. Environ Pract 14:288–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 315 Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Darrick T. Evensen & Richard C. Stedman

  2. Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Christopher E. Clarke

Authors
  1. Darrick T. Evensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher E. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard C. Stedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darrick T. Evensen.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 3 General and specific impact category descriptions (impacts of natural gas development)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evensen, D.T., Clarke, C.E. & Stedman, R.C. A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J Environ Stud Sci 4, 65–77 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0153-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0153-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation