Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity

Andrew Tracy,Amy Javernick-Will

doi:10.3390/su12062308

Abstract

The central United States has seen an increase in earthquakes in recent years, spurring academics to research this new hazard and communicate their findings to the public—that the earthquakes are human-induced and tied to activities associated with oil and gas development. However, individuals receive information from a variety of sources and accept or reject information based on how credible they view the information source. Within this study, we administered and analyzed a household survey to understand what sources individuals view as credible regarding induced seismicity and oil and gas development, and what factors predict this perceived source credibility. We found that academics were viewed as the most credible source, and elected officials were viewed as the least credible source. Rural respondents viewed sources, including academics, as less credible than their urban counterparts. Those who experienced more negative impacts of induced seismicity viewed all sources as less credible than did individuals who have not experienced such adverse impacts. These findings are important to consider when developing outreach and communication campaigns around sustainability issues, as the public will view certain sources, particularly academics, as more credible than the sources that traditionally create and enact policy, such as elected officials and government agencies.

Highlights

Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in the central United States, affecting states as far west as Texas and Colorado and as far east as Ohio
Every other source—elected officials, federal, state, and local government agencies, environmental actors, and academics—had a higher mean credibility for information on induced seismicity than information on oil and gas development. This demonstrates that the credibility of a source differs based on the topic. This could be due to individuals not associating oil and gas-affiliated sources with the earthquakes at all, or because some believe that oil and gas associated actors actively stifled the spread of information that would link their industry to the earthquakes [31], which could result in a negative view of their credibility
We identified a gap in past research and a need to investigate how individuals’ perceptions and past experiences influence how they perceive academics and other information sources regarding both oil and gas development and induced seismicity

Summary

Introduction

There has been an increase in the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in the central United States, affecting states as far west as Texas and Colorado and as far east as Ohio. Scientific researchers have neared consensus that these earthquakes are largely induced by the injection of large amounts of “produced” wastewater deep underground, a process often associated with oil and gas production via hydraulic fracturing [1]. Other explanations have been offered—such as wind farms [2] or drought–rainfall cycles [3] causing the earthquakes—creating uncertainty in the public as to the “true” cause of the quakes and who is a credible source of information. This work builds on research from energy and environmental sociology, risk perceptions, and science communication by examining source credibility regarding induced seismicity (human-made earthquakes) and oil and gas development. We examined which sources of information are viewed as credible regarding the earthquakes and oil and gas development, and what factors predict or influence credibility for different sources

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion