A comparative study of Chinese and American public perceptions of shale gas development

Abstract

This paper examines public perceptions of shale gas development in China and the United States. Public perceptions are important, as they are known to influence public policy at national and local levels of government in both multi-party and single-party governance systems. Online surveys were conducted in several states/provinces in each country, the US survey in 2014 (N = 2833); the China survey in 2016 (N = 1571). Similar survey instruments were used in both countries. The survey results show that the reported levels of public support for shale gas development among Chinese respondents in select provinces are significantly higher than that among US respondents in the states included in this study. Perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of shale gas have both similarities and differences. Shale gas is perceived favorably in both samples because it is seen as a way to reduce dependence on foreign energy suppliers and strengthen the economy. The potential environmental advantages appear to be relatively more important to Chinese respondents than to American respondents. The statement “shale gas development is good for the environment because it substitutes dirty energy such as coal and oil” is seen as “Extremely important” by 54.23% of all Chinese respondents but by only 33.75% of American respondents. When it comes to the potential disadvantages of shale gas development, concerns about impacts on drinking water quality are important in both samples. Earthquakes related to shale gas is the second most important concern to Chinese respondents but a lesser concern to US respondents. We argue that the results are consistent with risk experiences, a variety of socio-cultural theories, and differences in media coverage in the two countries. Future work should examine how public perceptions in the two countries change over time, and how the stances of environmental groups, government, and industry may influence public opinion.