





































The Great Divide


COMMONWEALTH, Volume 19, Issue 1 (2017). © 2017 The Pennsylvania Political Science Association.  
ISSN 2469-7672 (online). http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/com.v19i1.133. All rights reserved.

The Great Divide

Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and 

Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania and New York

ERICK LACHAPELLE
University of Montreal

This study compares public perceptions of shale gas extraction and hydraulic 
fracturing in two of the most populous states with significant shale gas reserves 
but with vastly different approaches to developing this resource. Drawing on 
data from a comparative survey administered to two statewide samples in Penn-
sylvania (n = 411) and New York (n = 404), the study examines the correlates of 
support for hydraulic fracturing, as well as general levels of public awareness, 
and perceptions of effects of hydraulic fracturing within the Marcellus shale 
play. Though the level of awareness of the fracking issue among residents of 
Pennsylvania and New York is found to be similarly high, levels of support for 
fracking differ, mirroring distinctive policy approaches found in these neighbor-
ing states. The correlates of support for fracking include being Republican, hav-
ing a conservative ideology, and being male. The study also finds that residents 
of New York are more aware of fracking policy and debate in Pennsylvania than 
vice versa, with many New York residents perceiving negative effects on their 
home state as a result of fracking in neighboring Pennsylvania. This asymmetric 
level of awareness and concern raises new questions on the role of cross-b order 
perceptions in shaping opinion toward hydraulic fracturing in adjacent states. 

The Marcellus formation in the northeastern corner of the United 
States contains one of the most robust deposits of natural gas found 
in North America. Stretching from West Virginia northward to 



The Great Divide 49

central New York State, the Marcellus shale deposit contains an estimated 
141 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (U.S. Energy Information Administra-
tion 2012). While the deposit is a unified geographic feature, it lies under an 
array of political jurisdictions including at least some portion of nine states 
and one Canadian province. With little federal intervention in the regulation 
of the extraction of natural gas from shale, state governments have played a 
primary role in overseeing drilling activity within the Marcellus shale play 
(Rabe 2014; Warner and Shapiro 2013). This situation has created striking 
differences in policy approaches throughout the Marcellus region, with the 
most extreme example of policy variation occurring on both sides of the 306- 
mile border that separates the State of New York and the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. This state border, which intersects the heart of the Marcellus 
play, has become a divide between one of the most active hydraulic frac-
turing regions in the United States and a neighboring state where the shale 
play remains largely untouched. This geography is such that some New York 
residents living on the border can see drill sites across the state line, as rigs 
in Pennsylvania drill for natural gas in the same shale formation that sits 
beneath their property.

In light of the substantial economic, environmental, and social costs and 
benefits of hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) for natural gas (Eaton 2013; 
Sovacool 2014), it is not surprising that this matter has become a major polit-
ical issue. In this context, this study compares public perceptions of shale 
gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing in two Marcellus states that have 
adopted vastly different approaches to developing this resource. Analyzing 
data from the National Survey on Energy and the Environment (NSEE), the 
study examines comparative views on such matters as public awareness of 
hydraulic fracturing, general support for shale gas drilling, and perceptions of 
effects of hydraulic fracturing within the Marcellus shale play. This includes 
a series of innovative questions that explore, for the first time, what Pennsyl-
vanians and New Yorkers know and think about hydraulic fracturing activity 
in their neighboring states, allowing for the examination of how experience 
with fracking and proximity to active shale plays in one state can influence 
opinions in neighboring jurisdictions.

Hydraulic Fracturing: The Pennsylvania  
and New York Context

Involving the injection of water and chemicals at high pressure to crack 
open shale rock and release oil and gas deep below the surface, the process 
of hydraulic fracturing has been used by industry for decades. However, the 



50 eriCk laChapelle

fairly recent introduction of horizontal drilling techniques combined with 
high- volume hydraulic fracturing has enhanced oil and gas recovery from 
reserves previously considered inaccessible. The technological developments 
in hydraulic fracturing have enabled the growth of efforts to extract gas from 
shale deposits in many regions of the United States. In fact, the oil and gas 
exemptions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act have removed regulatory power 
from the Environmental Protection Agency, thus leaving state governments 
largely in control of the regulation of this practice (Warner and Shapiro 2013; 
Rabe 2014).

Despite the growing use of these techniques, and though sharing simi-
lar access to the Marcellus shale deposit, Pennsylvania and New York have 
adopted strikingly different approaches to hydraulic fracturing over the last 
decade. Indeed, Pennsylvania has seen broad and intense expansion in the use 
of hydraulic fracturing since the process was first applied in the Common-
wealth in 2003 (Harper 2008; Rabe and Borick 2013). In 2012 natural gas from 
shale accounted for more than 90% of the state’s natural gas production (U.S. 
Energy Information Administration 2014). The growth in shale gas drilling 
has led to large-s cale public debates within Pennsylvania that have in turn 
produced a number of highly controversial policies, most notably, the state’s 
Oil and Gas Act.

Passed by the state government in early 2012, the Oil and Gas Act, or Act 
13, established the framework for governance of unconventional gas drill-
ing in Pennsylvania. The legislation creates an impact fee on wells drilled, 
with revenue primarily going to local governments where drilling takes place. 
Act 13 also provides baseline water supply protections and limited fracking 
fluid chemical disclosure; establishes statewide environmental standards with 
respect to fracking; and outlines processes for well inspections, permitting, 
environmental protections, well location restrictions, and water- use regula-
tions. Overall, these regulations have generally been considered pro- industry. 
Indeed, former governor Tom Corbett, a principle architect and strong sup-
porter of Act 13, prioritized shale gas exploration and development through-
out his term as governor, receiving numerous campaign donations from those 
aligned with the oil and gas industry (Rabe and Borick 2013). Ultimately, Cor-
bett’s continued opposition to an extraction tax—despite growing pressure 
from within his own party—opened the door to his electoral defeat to Tom 
Wolf, who successfully exploited Corbett’s lax shale policies on his road to 
becoming governor. Nevertheless, the Keystone state continues to harbor a 
permissive approach to the industry, despite recent declines in drilling that 
resulted from a combination of low oil and gas prices and the declining rate 
of production from older wells in the state.



The Great Divide 51

Across the border, the picture in New York is considerably different. 
Despite an abundant supply of shale gas within its share of the Marcellus play, 
New York has not permitted high volume hydraulic fracturing for uncon-
ventional gas and oil exploration. Although no unconventional gas drilling 
is taking place in the Empire State, there has been considerable study and 
debate regarding hydraulic fracturing. Indeed, after a New York State legisla-
ture decision to pass a temporary moratorium on fracking was passed in 2010, 
the legislative session 2013–2014 featured an array of proposed bills, perhaps 
in anticipation of an eventual removal of the moratorium following a regula-
tory review conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation (DEC). The DEC currently regulates the drilling, operation, 
and plugging of natural gas wells and would manage hydraulic fracturing–
related regulations if the ban were lifted. Yet after seven years of review, the 
DEC released a statement concluding that New York should not proceed with 
hydraulic fracturing in the state (DEC 2015), creating the basis for a com-
prehensive ban on use of this technology in New York, and setting up a legal 
battle among fracking opponents and proponents in the state (Coin 2015).

Research Questions and Literature Review

The strikingly different policy approaches present an ideal opportunity for 
analyzing differences in state-l evel public attitudes toward hydraulic frac-
turing. Existing literature has begun to f lesh out these policy differences, 
examining policy efforts in Pennsylvania (Rabe and Borick 2012, 2013) as 
well as regulatory efforts in New York (Boscarino 2013; Barnes 2013). Efforts 
to link these policy differences to differences in public opinion, however, are 
rare. While there is growing literature on public opinion on this issue, rela-
tively few studies are based on representative state-l evel samples that maxi-
mize comparability within and across state populations. Moreover, questions 
about perceptions of fracking activity happening out of state are even scarcer. 
This study contributes to the emerging literature on public attitudes toward 
hydraulic fracturing by examining responses to a comparative survey admin-
istered to statewide representative samples of the Pennsylvania and New York 
populations in 2014.

Given the relative novelty of high-v olume hydraulic fracturing with hori-
zontal drilling, it may not be surprising to find that the number of studies 
on public opinion on this matter is fairly limited. Nevertheless, a growing 
body of literature has provided insight into how Americans view this matter. 
Some of this research examines nationally representative samples to paint a 
high- level picture of how Americans perceive this issue. For instance, The 



52 eriCk laChapelle

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2012, 2015) has conducted 
a number of national- level studies that have examined awareness of and sup-
port for hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Among other things, this 
research has found that while Americans are divided on whether they support 
increased use of fracking, only about a quarter (26%) report having heard a 
lot about this issue, while pluralities have heard a little (37%) or nothing at all 
(37%). These findings are generally corroborated in one of the most compre-
hensive scholarly studies of public attitudes regarding hydraulic fracturing 
conducted to date (Boudet et al. 2014). In this study, a nationally representative 
sample of over 1,000 adult Americans were found to have very limited aware-
ness of hydraulic fracturing within the United States, and mixed levels of sup-
port for the practice. The study also found that support is affected by a number 
of factors, including having a conservative political ideology, while increased 
familiarity with fracking, having egalitarian worldviews, reading the newspa-
per, and being female was found to increase opposition. Other national- level 
studies have found evidence of partisan polarization on this issue (Clarke et al. 
2016; Borick and Clarke 2016) and that the term “fracking” itself (as opposed 
to framing the question around shale oil or gas development) heightens oppo-
sition to this practice among Americans (Clarke et al. 2015; Climek et al. 2014).

While contributing to our understanding of the factors that help shape 
public attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing, these nationally representative 
samples potentially overlook important differences at the state level. Given the 
non- uniform distribution of shale gas deposits and fracking activity across the 
continental United States, one might expect fracking- related knowledge and 
awareness to vary spatially. In particular, levels of awareness and support are 
likely to be heterogeneous across states, varying with the degree of experience 
and familiarity with the issue. 

To better explore the role of such geographic context in shaping public 
attitudes toward fracking, numerous studies have begun to explore public atti-
tudes at the state and local levels. For instance, a series of studies in Pennsyl-
vania by the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion and The Center 
for Local State and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan have examined 
public opinion of hydraulic fracturing in that state. These studies have found 
that most Pennsylvanians tend to see hydraulic fracturing as positive for the 
Commonwealth but also harbor substantial concerns about the policies and 
risks associated with shale gas extraction (Brown et al. 2013; Muhlenberg Col-
lege Institute of Public Opinion 2011). Comparative studies drawing on the 
same data have shown that the role of information varies depending on place, 
exerting a powerful effect in Quebec, but not in Michigan and Pennsylvania 
(Lachapelle and Montpetit 2014).



The Great Divide 53

Other studies focus on the substate level. One of the first efforts to ana-
lyze public opinion at this more local level is a study by Jacquet (2012), which 
administered a mail survey to landowners in a region in northern Penn-
sylvania that had experienced simultaneous development of both the wind 
and natural gas development industries. This study found that proximity 
explained little variation in attitudes toward wind and natural gas develop-
ment in the region, but that individuals with environmental attitudes, and 
those leasing their land, had, respectively, significantly more negative and 
significantly more positive attitudes toward the gas industry. In another 
study, Stedman et al. (2012) use a random sample of New York and Pennsyl-
vania residents within the Marcellus shale region to compare views on shale 
gas issues between these states. They found New Yorkers were more likely 
than Pennsylvanians living on the same shale play to have negative views of 
both hydraulic fracturing and the shale gas industry, but that there were no 
differences across state lines in knowledge and awareness about the subject. 
Employing a similar research design, Brasier et al. (2013) examine risk per-
ceptions in counties located in the core of the Marcellus shale play in Penn-
sylvania (21 counties) and New York (8 counties). This study also found that 
residing in New York increases the probability of seeing greater risk from gas 
drilling. In addition, Brasier et al. (2013) found that awareness of nearby gas 
wells is weakly associated with lower risk perceptions in bivariate correlations 
but that this effect disappears when additional variables are included in a 
regression model. A final study by Kriesky et al. (2013) compares views across 
residents living in adjacent Washington and Allegheny counties. This study 
finds that attitudes are more positive where drilling activity is relatively more 
intense (i.e., in Washington County), that this is especially true when indi-
viduals have leased their mineral rights, and that perceived economic benefits 
drive support among respondents. 

Overall, existing studies help identify the factors that help shape public 
attitudes and perceptions toward hydraulic fracturing. Several important 
questions, however, remain. For instance, how does the structure of pub-
lic opinion in Pennsylvania compare to that in New York, at the state level? 
To what extent do these opinions map onto the different policy approaches 
adopted by each state? What is the role of information and experience with 
hydraulic fracturing in shaping attitudes toward this industry? How much 
attention do residents of Pennsylvania and New York pay to fracking devel-
opments across the border, and how do these views affect perceptions of risk 
and overall support?

In pursuing answers to these questions, the present study seeks to accom-
plish a number of goals. First it seeks to directly compare statewide attitudes, 



54 eriCk laChapelle

beliefs, and preferences regarding hydraulic fracturing in both New York 
and Pennsylvania, using statewide representative surveys. This represents an 
important difference with much of the existing literature, which tends to rely 
on national samples, or otherwise focus on targeted subsets of state popula-
tions. Given that statewide policy decisions are likely to reflect statewide pub-
lic opinion and not just opinion in a section of the state where there is actual 
(or potential) fracking taking place, it is valuable to measure opinion and 
explore the correlates of support for and opposition toward hydraulic frac-
turing among representative samples of all residents in two Marcellus shale 
states. This study is thus explicitly designed to better address how residents in 
both New York and Pennsylvania respond to identical questions fielded at the 
same time to allow direct comparison of the structure of opinion on hydraulic 
fracturing within these states.

Second, beyond providing a more complete understanding of the differ-
ences in areas such as issue awareness and policy support, the direct compari-
sons of statewide opinion on hydraulic fracturing allow for inquiry into the 
alignment between state policies and public opinion. A large body of political 
science research has found a linkage between state-l evel public opinion and 
policy adoption across an array of policy domains (Burstein 2003; Pacheco 
2013; Wright, Erikson and McIver 1993; Johnson, Brace and Arceneaux 2005). 
Given the vastly different policy approaches toward shale gas extraction in 
these two Marcellus shale play states, one might anticipate varied opinion 
among the residents of New York and Pennsylvania that generally aligns with 
these divergent policy outcomes.

A third major goal of this study, and perhaps a unique offering to the 
literature, is to compare the level of knowledge and opinion that residents 
of New York and Pennsylvania have about hydraulic fracturing levels and 
policy in their neighboring state and to explore the effect of that knowledge 
and opinion on policy preferences within their own states. A robust body of 
literature has examined the diffusion of public policies between states (Gray 
1973; Mintrom 1997; Mooney 2001; Glick and Frieland 2014). A variety of 
internal political, economic, and social factors helps to explain why state- level 
policymaking behavior resembles a “system of emulation” (Walker 1969), as 
neighbors imitate policies found in other jurisdictions. In more recent work, 
Glick and Friedland (2014) demonstrate that learning from other states facili-
tates policy diffusion and that this scenario is most likely to occur among 
policymakers in adjacent states. While considerable evidence shows that poli-
cymakers do learn from and emulate others, little research examines what 
citizens themselves know about issues and policies in neighboring states. A 
study by Schneider, Jacoby, and Lewis (2011) uses a national survey to provide 



The Great Divide 55

insight into what Americans prefer in terms of intergovernmental relations, 
including state- to- state relationships, but does not delve into what individuals 
may know and think about policies in other states. The present study seeks to 
fill this gap, by examining the extent to which knowledge of what is occurring 
across state lines influences policy preferences within adjacent states.

Data and Methods

To answer these questions, this study draws on data from an April and May 
2014 telephone survey conducted by the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opin-
ion, in collaboration with the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, 
and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) as part of the National Surveys on Energy and 
Environment (NSEE) series. This survey secured responses from 405 New 
York residents and 411 Pennsylvania residents, drawn from all regions of each 
state and comprising statistically representative profiles of the respective citi-
zens. Land lines and cell phones were sampled in both states; the New York 
sample was made up of 252 land lines and 153 cell phones, and the Pennsylva-
nia sample was made- up of 242 land lines and 141 cell phones. The American 
Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) RR3 response rate for the 
combined sample was 16%.

Support for Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania and New York

This study begins with an examination of overall levels of knowledge and sup-
port for shale gas extraction in Pennsylvania and New York. In contrast to the 
limited awareness of hydraulic fracturing found among Americans in national 
samples (Pew 2012; Boudet et al. 2014) results from the two statewide NSEE 
surveys reveals that roughly half of the population in Pennsylvania (49%) and 
New York (44%) are following the issue of hydraulic fracturing in their state 
either very or somewhat closely. Moreover, New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians 
also report similar levels of awareness of the process of hydraulic fracturing, 
with a little over a third of Pennsylvanians (37%) and New Yorkers (34%) 
saying that they have heard a lot about the process, and majorities in both 
states reporting that they have heard at least a little about the process (55% in 
New York and 52% in Pennsylvania). While a plurality (39%) of Americans in 
a national- level survey report hearing “nothing at all” about fracking (Bou-
det et al. 2014), the proportion of Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers reporting 
similarly low levels of awareness is comparatively smaller (about one in ten). 

Across Pennsylvania and New York, familiarity with and attention to 
the fracking issue are thus relatively high. When these two variables are 



56 eriCk laChapelle

standardized on a 0–1 scale and combined into an index (alpha = 0.75), no 
significant difference across residents of Pennsylvania (M = 1.18, SD = 0.55) 
and New York (M = 1.20, SD = 0.54) in mean levels of awareness (t(805) = 0.60, 
p = 0.545) is observed. Of course, the relatively high level of issue awareness 
observed in both Pennsylvania and New York is to be expected, given that the 
debate over the relative benefits and risks of “fracking” is likely to be more 
salient in states that sit atop important shale resources (Evensen, Clarke and 
Stedman 2014).

While Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers report similar levels of aware-
ness of hydraulic fracturing, they differ considerably in overall views on the 
extraction of natural gas from shale deposits in their states. Results indicate 
that a slim majority (54%) of Pennsylvania residents support shale gas extrac-
tion in their state in comparison to only three out of ten (30%) New Yorkers 
who feel the same. However, whether or not individuals live on a shale play 
appears (at least at first) to make a difference.

Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration Shale data-
base, the Geological Survey of Canada, and self- reported postal codes, respon-
dents were located on a map of the Marcellus and Utica shale plays underlying 
parts of Pennsylvania and New York using Arc GIS software. Individuals liv-
ing atop the shale play were coded as 1, and those not living on the play were 
coded as 0. Respondents were then plotted on the layered map, and color- 
coded those supporting the use of hydraulic fracturing in their state (white 
circles), and those in opposition (dark circles). As shown in Figure 1, there 
appear to be more white circles (and thus more support) on the colored por-
tions of the map representing the presence of a shale play. Further evidence of 
this relationship is provided in a bivariate cross- tab (Table 1).

As shown in Table 1, there appears to be some relationship between living 
on a shale play and supporting the use of hydraulic fracturing. Indeed, those 
not living on either the Marcellus or Utica plays are more likely to oppose, and 
those living on one of these plays are more likely to support, use of hydraulic 
fracturing in their state. Though clearly visible, this relationship is somewhat 
weak and barely significant at conventional levels. Moreover, the bivariate 
analysis ignores the potential role of other predictors. To ascertain what 
shapes attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania and New York, 
a logistic regression was estimated to model support for hydraulic fracturing 
as a function of political, demographic, and geographic factors.

Figure 2 presents the results of the logistic regression in which the depen-
dent variable identifies all respondents who indicated support for the use of 
hydraulic fracturing (i.e., “Strongly” and “Somewhat” support). To facilitate 
interpretation, the average marginal effects for each predictor are plotted 



The Great Divide 57

along with 95% confidence intervals. Where these confidence bans do not 
overlap the zero line, the model suggests the particular relationship (positive 
or negative) is statistically significant. Overall, these estimates represent the 
expected change in the likelihood of any one respondent indicating support, 
given a one- unit change in each of the predictor variables.

As can be seen, several of the variables included in the model help explain 
variation in support for hydraulic fracturing at the individual level. Consistent 
with past research (Boudet et al. 2014), the data suggest that Republicans are 
more likely than Democrats to support hydraulic fracturing in their state, and 

 Figure 1. Spatial Distribution of Support for and Opposition to Hydraulic Fracturing in 
Pennsylvania and New York. (EIA U.S. shale database; Canadian National Geographic Survey; 
National Survey of Energy and the Environment.)

table 1. support for hydraulic Fracturing by residence over shale play

not on shale play on shale play
(n = 519) (n = 297)

Oppose (n = 354) 46% 39%

Support (n = 350) 39% 48%

Not sure (n = 111) 14% 13%

Q4: In general, would you say that you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or 
strongly oppose the extraction of natural gas from shale deposits in New York/Pennsylvania?

Source: National Survey of Energy and the Environment.

2 5.24; 2; 0.073.Note: x  =  df = p = 



58 eriCk laChapelle

the likelihood of support increases moving from left to right along the 5- point 
(very) liberal to (very) conservative ideology scale. The level of self- reported 
awareness, in contrast, offers more limited analytical leverage on predicting 
support. Indeed, in cross-t abulations (not shown here) an increased level of 
awareness is associated with both heightened support and opposition. In other 
words, familiarity and awareness do not uniformly increase or decrease sup-
port, but can be polarizing, resulting in a net non- effect (since more awareness 
is found among those who support and oppose fracking, the effects cancel 
each other out). In terms of demographics, there is no difference between 
college-  and non- college- educated groups, nor can a significant difference 
across categories of age be observed. However, the analysis finds that being 
female, rather than male, significantly decreases the chances of support.

What stands out most from Figure 2, however, is that being a resident of 
Pennsylvania, as opposed to living in the state of New York, is associated with 
a higher probability (about 20%) of indicating support for hydraulic fractur-
ing in their state. After controlling for state of residence, the effect of living 
on the Marcellus or Utica shale play (examined in Table 1) disappears. These 
results are broadly consistent with previous research that found a similarly 
robust relationship between state of residence and risk perception associated 
with fracking, which held even when controlling for awareness of nearby gas 
wells. That this relationship can be observed in a statewide sample, however, 

Figure 2. Marginal Effects on the Probability of Support for Hydraulic Frac turing. (National 
Survey of Energy and the Environment.)

 



The Great Divide 59

provides more direct evidence that public opinion and policy are fairly well 
aligned in terms of the shale gas issue in Pennsylvania and New York. As 
might be expected in a representative democracy, a more permissive fracking 
regime in Pennsylvania is aligned with broad support in the Keystone state, 
while the ban on such methods in New York is broadly in line with opinions 
there. But why do such large differences exist across these two adjacent states 
with similar resources? To what extent might cross- border perceptions be 
influenced by what’s happening across state lines?

Cross-Border Perspectives  

Given the controversy over fracking in Pennsylvania and New York, one 
might expect residents of these two states to also be more aware of similar 
debates occurring in adjacent states. To explore this possibility, this study 
examines opinions of shale gas policies and activities across the Pennsylvania- 
New York state border. In particular the survey allows for the comparison of 
how residents in these two states view the fracking activities in neighboring 
jurisdictions and assess the impact of such activities on life in their own state.

Respondents in both states were thus asked how aware they believe them-
selves to be concerning the level of hydraulic fracturing taking place in their 
neighboring state. Response options for this self-r eported item included “Very 
aware,” “Somewhat aware,” “Not very aware,” and “Not aware at all.” Relative 
to residents of Pennsylvania, those living in New York generally report being 
more aware of the level of fracking activity in the neighboring state. In fact, 
New Yorkers are 20% more likely than Pennsylvanians to say that they are 
“Very” or “Somewhat” aware of the level of hydraulic fracturing taking place 
across the border (Table 2). This level of asymmetric awareness suggests that 

table 2. self- reported awareness of hydraulic Fracturing in neighboring state

pennsylvania
(n = 411)

new york
(n = 405)

Very aware 11% 24%

Somewhat aware 25% 32%

Not very aware 20% 14%

Not aware at all 39% 25%

Not sure 5% 5%

Q11: Beyond New York/Pennsylvania hydraulic fracturing has been a public issue in neighboring 
states, including New York/Pennsylvania. Are you very aware, somewhat aware, not very aware, or not 
aware at all about the level of hydraulic fracturing in New York/Pennsylvania? 

Source: National Survey of Energy and the Environment.



60 eriCk laChapelle

table 3. ability to Correctly answer Factual Questions on hydraulic Fracturing in 
neighboring state by self- reported awareness

0 Correct responses 1 Correct responses 2 Correct responses

pa
(n = 266)

ny
(n = 138)

pa
(n = 71)

ny
(n = 57)

pa
(n = 74)

ny
(n = 209)

Not aware 
at all

49% 63% 28% 19% 11% 2%

Not very 
aware

20% 18% 31% 23% 11% 9%

Somewhat 
aware

20% 6% 24% 25% 42% 51%

Very aware 3% 2% 17% 26% 35% 38%

Not sure 8% 11% <1% 7% 1% <1%

Q11: Beyond New York/Pennsylvania hydraulic fracturing has been a public issue in neighboring 
states, including New York/Pennsylvania. Are you very aware, somewhat aware, not very aware, or 
not aware at all about the level of hydraulic fracturing in New York/Pennsylvania? Q12: In terms of 
your perception of hydraulic fracturing in New York/Pennsylvania, would you say that there is a high 
level of hydraulic fracturing, a moderate level of hydraulic fracturing, very little hydraulic fracturing, 
or no hydraulic fracturing at all? Q13: Which of the following do you think best describes New York/
Pennsylvania policy regarding hydraulic fracturing? NY [PA] allows hydraulic fracturing, NY [PA] does 
not allow hydraulic fracturing?

Source: National Survey of Energy and the Environment.

Note: The number of correct answers is computed from the ability of respondents to correctly answer 
2Q12 and Q13. For Pennsylvania: x  = 107.76; df = 8; Cramer’s V = 0.362 p = 0.000. For New York: 

2x  = 246.96; df = 8; Cramer’s V = 0.553; p = 0.000.

the high-profile debate over fracking in Pennsylvania has penetrated deeper 
into the psyche of New Yorkers rather than the other way around.

The validity of self- assessed measures of the level of awareness of fracking 
in neighboring states was tested by examining responses to factual questions. 
Essentially, this involves testing if those reporting they are aware of hydraulic 
fracturing across the border actually know what is happening. Overall, a high 
correlation between self- assessed awareness and ability to answer two factual 
questions on actual level of fracking activity and policy can be observed (Table 
3). Respondents were first asked to identify the level of hydraulic fracturing 
taking place across the border. Response options included “A high level,” “A 
moderate level,” “Very little,” and “No” hydraulic fracturing. For the purpose 
of Table 3, New York respondents reporting “High” and “Moderate” levels 
of fracking in Pennsylvania were coded as reporting a correct answer, while 
Pennsylvania respondents reporting “Very little” or “No” hydraulic fracturing 
occurring in New York were similarly coded. All others (including “Not sure”) 



The Great Divide 61

were coded as unable to offer a correct answer. Next, respondents were asked 
to indicate whether they thought their neighboring state allows (or does not 
allow) hydraulic fracturing. Respondents able to correctly identify the permis-
siveness (or not) of policy in the neighboring jurisdiction were again coded as 
able to offer a correct answer, while all others were coded as unable to provide 
an accurate response.

Table 3 shows that self- assessed levels of awareness map onto actual levels 
of knowledge about fracking activity and policy across the Pennsylvania/New 
York border. Specifically, among Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers who were 
unable to offer accurate responses to the two factual questions, a majority in 
Pennsylvania (69%) and in New York (71%) accurately identified themselves 
as being “Not very” or “Not aware at all” of fracking activity across the bor-
der. Similarly, among those who correctly answered the questions, a major-
ity in Pennsylvania (77%) and New York (89%) accurately reported being 
either “Somewhat” or “Very” aware of the level of hydraulic fracturing in 
the neighboring state. Table 3 also demonstrates, however, that awareness of 
cross- border fracking policy and activity is much higher in New York relative 
to Pennsylvania. In fact, a majority (52%) of New Yorkers in the sample cor-
rectly answered the two questions pertaining to fracking activity and policy 
in Pennsylvania, compared to a small minority (18%) of Pennsylvanians who 
correctly answered the same two factual questions about fracking in New 
York. Overall, the data in Table 3 highlight a convergence between the self- 
assessed measure of awareness and the ability to accurately identify the level 
of fracking activity and associated policy in the neighboring state. The data 
also suggest the level of cross- border awareness in fracking activity between 
Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers is asymmetric, with New Yorkers generally 
more able to accurately report on levels of fracking activity across state lines.

To what extent might these differential levels of awareness among Penn-
sylvanians and New Yorkers about activities occurring across the border drive 
broader perceptions of fracking? Examining responses to questions pertain-
ing to the perceived impact of fracking for the quality of life across the border, 
this line of questioning is pursued in Table 4, which highlights some intrigu-
ing differences. While a majority of both Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers are 
either not sure or see no effect on their state from the level of hydraulic frac-
turing across the border, New Yorkers are about three times as likely (29% vs. 
9%) to say hydraulic fracturing levels in Pennsylvania have a negative rather 
than a positive effect on life in New York, while Pennsylvanians are more 
evenly split (15% negative and 14% positive) on the impact of fracking levels 
in New York on life in Pennsylvania. Moreover, New Yorkers are about twice 



62 eriCk laChapelle

as likely (29% vs. 15%) as Pennsylvanians to think that the level of hydraulic 
fracturing in their neighboring states has a negative effect on quality of life 
in their state.

Next, the relationship between individuals’ expressed awareness of 
hydraulic fracturing across the state border and their views on the impact of 
the level of shale gas extraction on quality of life in their state is examined. The 
results outlined in Table 5 indicate some differences between Pennsylvania 

table 4. Views on the effects of hydraulic Fracturing levels in neighboring state 
on Quality of life in respondent’s state

new york pennsylvania
(n = 411) (n = 405)

Positive effect  9% 14%

Negative effect 29% 15%

No effect 30% 32%

Not sure 32% 38%

Q14: In general do you think that the level of hydraulic fracturing in New York/Pennsylvania has a 
positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect on quality of life in New York/Pennsylvania?

Source: National Survey of Energy and the Environment.

2Notes: x  = 23.57; df = 3; p = 0.000.

table 5. Views on effects of Fracking for overall Quality of life in home state by 
perceived level of hydraulic Fracking in neighboring state

high 
level of moderate Very little no 

Fracking in Fracking in Fracking in Fracking in 
neighboring neighboring neighboring neighboring 

state state state state not sure

pa ny pa ny pa ny pa ny pa ny
(n = (n = (n = (n = (n = (n = (n = (n = (n = (n = 
10) 120) 60) 112) 52) 17) 71) 8) 218) 146)

Positive effect 30% 11% 23% 13% 25% 24% 14% 13% 9% 3%

Negative effect 20% 44% 27% 27% 21% 18% 18% 13% 9% 19%

No effect 20% 28% 33% 38% 40% 47% 51% 25% 25% 24%

Not sure 30% 17% 17% 21% 14% 12% 17% 50% 57% 53%

Q14: In general do you think that the level of hydraulic fracturing in New York/Pennsylvania has a 
positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect on the quality of life in New York/Pennsylvania?

Source: National Survey of Energy and the Environment.

2 2Note: For Pennsylvania: x  = 84.23; df = 12; p = 0.000. For New York: x  = 70.75; df = 12; p = 
0.000.



The Great Divide 63

and New York perspectives. Among New Yorkers who accurately perceive a 
high level of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania, a plurality (44%) think that 
this activity has a negative impact on quality of life in New York, with only 
11% of this group expressing the view that the high levels of hydraulic frac-
turing have a positive effect on New York. However, among Pennsylvanians 
who accurately perceive New York as having no hydraulic fracturing, most 
(51%) think that this outcome has no effect on life in their commonwealth, 
with only (14%) saying that the absence of activity has a positive impact on 
Pennsylvania quality of life and (18%) indicating that no shale gas extraction 
in New York has a negative effect on life in Pennsylvania. These findings are 
consistent with what might be expected from an attentive public. They also 
provide some context in which to interpret the difference in levels of support 
for hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania and New York. Specifically, the per-
ceived negative effect of fracking in Pennsylvania for residents of New York 
might help explain, at least in part, the relatively greater level of opposition to 
fracking observed in the Empire state.

The possibility that cross-b order perceptions of hydraulic fracturing 
activities inf luence perceptions of likely effects for the home state raises 
novel questions regarding spillover and diffusion. Specifically, while policy-
makers actively look to other jurisdictions to learn from policies elsewhere, 
to what extent might citizens similarly inform their policy preferences by 
looking at other jurisdictions? While not offering an explicit test, analysis 
of questions in this comparative survey finds an interesting relationship 
between individuals’ support for hydraulic fracturing and their views on the 
role that fracking policy in their neighboring state should play in their own 
state. For instance, among Pennsylvanians who strongly support hydraulic 
fracturing in their state, only 9% believe New York’s moratorium policy (at 
the time) should have a major effect on Pennsylvania’s policy in this area. 
On the other hand, 62% of Pennsylvanians who strongly support hydraulic 
fracturing in the Commonwealth believe that New York’s moratorium on 
fracking should have no effect on Pennsylvania policy on this matter. At the 
other end of the spectrum, a plurality of Pennsylvanians (39%) who strongly 
oppose fracking in their state think that the New York moratorium should 
have a strong effect on policy in their state. In New York this relationship is 
somewhat less pronounced. Among the New Yorkers who strongly support 
fracking in their state, equal pluralities (of 42%) think the permissive policy 
in Pennsylvania should have a major and no effect on New York policy, 
respectively. Among those New Yorkers who strongly oppose fracking in 
New York, a plurality (39%) maintain the view that Pennsylvania’s policies 



64 eriCk laChapelle

to allow this form of natural gas extraction should have no effect on New 
York policy (Table 6).

Conclusion

Building on previous research, and drawing on comparative surveys, this 
study provides some new perspective on public attitudes toward hydraulic 
fracturing in the United States, at the state level. Analyzing statewide repre-
sentative data, it finds that Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers express similarly 
high levels of awareness of hydraulic fracturing, especially when compared to 
results drawn from similar questions asked to national samples. Moreover, the 
results show a fairly aligned relationship between levels of public support for 

table 6. support for hydraulic Fracturing by Views on the extent to Which hydraulic 
Fracturing policy in neighboring state should influence home state policy

policy in 
neighboring 
state should 
have maJor 
effect on your 
state policy

policy in 
neighboring 
state should 
have minor 
effect on your 
state policy

policy in 
neighboring 
state should 

have no 
effect on your 
state policy not sure

pa
(n = 
88)

ny
(n = 
97)

pa
(n = 
95)

ny
(n = 
111)

pa
(n = 
162)

ny
(n = 
135)

pa
(n = 
66)

ny
(n = 
61)

Strongly support 
hydraulic fracturing 
in your state

9% 42% 16% 11% 62% 42% 13% 5%

Somewhat support 
hydraulic fracturing 
in your state

26% 29% 24% 33% 39% 26% 11% 12%

Somewhat oppose 
hydraulic fracturing 
in your state

26% 16% 35% 34% 15% 29% 23% 21%

Strongly oppose 
hydraulic fracturing 
in your state

40% 24% 20% 27% 32% 39% 9% 10%

Not sure 10% 12% 23% 26% 36% 32% 31% 30%

Q18: Should the fact that there is a great deal of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania [a moratorium 
on hydraulic fracturing in New York] have a major effect, minor effect, or no effect on Pennsylvania’s 
decision to allow or not allow hydraulic fracturing in the state? Q4: In general, would you say that you 
strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the extraction of natural 
gas from shale deposits in New York/Pennsylvania? 

Source: National Survey of Energy and the Environment.

2 2Note: For Pennsylvania: x  = 15.74; df = 3; Cramer’s V = 0.196 p = 0.001. For New York: x  = 53.61; 
df = 3; Cramer’s V = 0.364; p = 0.000.



The Great Divide 65

hydraulic fracturing and New York and Pennsylvania policy regarding this 
matter. Most New Yorkers remain opposed to hydraulic fracturing with the 
state moratorium (at the time the survey was conducted) reflecting this broad 
public opinion. Across the 306-m ile state border with New York, a majority 
of Pennsylvanians support the hydraulic fracturing that has been allowed by 
permissive state regulations. Thus some convergence of public opinion and 
public policy regarding hydraulic fracturing in these Marcellus shale play 
states can be observed. These findings are consistent with what might be 
expected from representative democracies sitting atop significant shale rock 
formations.

Of course this does not imply perfect alignment between public prefer-
ences and details of state policy toward shale gas extraction. Indeed results 
from the analysis demonstrate that opinions in New York and Pennsylvania 
are not uniform, with Republicans, men and those with a more conservative 
ideology significantly more likely to support the use of hydraulic fracturing in 
their home state. Moreover, other studies demonstrate that, in some instances, 
public opinion and specific policies does not align, as is the case for Pennsyl-
vanians who are opposed to particular policy approaches adopted by their 
state, including the lack of a severance tax and limited chemical disclosure 
rules (Rabe and Borick 2011; Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion 
2011). At a general level, though, opinions are broadly consistent with existing 
policy approaches in both states, with higher support in Pennsylvania corre-
sponding with a more permissive policy approach, and greater opposition in 
New York corresponding to greater restrictions.

The results also provide insight into the level of cross- border knowledge 
and opinions about hydraulic fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania. The 
findings suggest that residents of these states give moderate levels of atten-
tion to the levels of hydraulic fracturing activity and policy on the other side 
of the New York/Pennsylvania border. However, this attention to hydraulic 
fracturing matters in the neighboring state is not equal among residents of 
the states, with New Yorkers significantly more likely than Pennsylvanians to 
know more about shale gas issues in their neighboring state. This asymmet-
ric awareness raises new questions on the role of cross- border perceptions in 
shaping opinion toward hydraulic fracturing in adjacent states. While policy 
diffusion is an important topic of study in the literature, the potential spill-
over from policy debates occurring in adjacent states at the level of public 
opinion deserves greater inquiry. In particular, this study has not explored the 
potential mediating role of proximity to the New York/Pennsylvania border, 
which may add more explanatory power and nuance. Does proximity to the 
state border impact both individuals’ knowledge about hydraulic fracturing 



66 eriCk laChapelle

levels and policies in the neighboring state, and in turn does that affect their 
views about shale gas extraction in their own states? What is the relationship 
between awareness, proximity, and perceptions of risk? Future researchers 
may wish to pursue these questions to better capture the role of cross- border 
perceptions in shaping public attitudes toward controversial issues like 
hydraulic fracturing in the United States.

NOTE

Acknowledgments: I thank Chris Borick for permission to use the NSEE data and 
Irena Nedeva for helpful research assistance.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Matthew. 2013. “Hydrofracking and Policymaking in New York Municipali-
ties.” Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Political Sci-
ence Association. Chicago, IL, August 29 to September 1, 2013.

Borick, Christopher, and Chris Clarke. 2016. “American Views on Fracking.” Issues 
in Energy and Environmental Policy 28 (May): 1–9.

Boscarino, Jessica. 2013. “Last Line of Defense: Regulating Hydrofracking through 
the Use of Home Rule.” Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the 
American Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, August 29 to September 
1, 2013.

Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser- 
Renouf, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. “‘Fracking’ Controversy and Com-
munication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of 
Hydraulic Fracturing.” Energy Policy 65 (February): 57–67.

Brasier, Kathryn J., Diane K. McLaughlin, Danielle Rhubart, Richard C. Stedman, 
Matthew R. Filteau, and Jeffrey Jacquet. 2013. “Risk Perceptions of Natural Gas 
Development in the Marcellus Shale.” Environmental Practice 15 (June): 108–122.

Brown. Erica, Kristine Hartman, Christopher Borick, Barry G. Rabe, and Thomas 
Ivacko. 2013. “Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and 
Pennsylvania.” Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 3 (May): 1–26.

Burstein, Paul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and 
an Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (March): 29–40.

Clarke, Christopher E., Dylan Budgen, P. Sol Hart, Richard C. Stedman, Jeffrey B. 
Jacquet, Darrick T. N. Evensen, and Hilary S. Boudet. 2016. “How Geographic 
Distance and Political Ideology Interact to Inf luence Public Perception of 
Unconventional Oil/Natural Gas Development.” Energy Policy 97 (October): 
301–309.

Clarke, Christopher E., Philip S. Hart, Jonathon P. Schuldt, Darrick T. N. Evensen, 
Hilary S. Boudet, Jeffrey B. Jacquet, and Richard C. Stedman. 2015. “Public Opin-
ion on Energy Development: The Interplay of Issue Framing, Top- of- Mind Asso-
ciations, and Political Ideology.” Energy Policy 81 (June): 131–140.

Climek, Michael, Lina Brou, Maxwell Means, and Kirby Goidel. 2014. “Fracking 
and Polarization of Public Opinion.” Louisiana State University Public Policy 
Research Lab. Available at http://lsureillycenter.com/wp- content/uploads/20S5/ 



The Great Divide 67

12/National- Fracking- Report- 7- 24- 13- Public-P olicy- Research- Lab- at- LSU.pdf. 
Accessed August 12, 2016.

Coin, Glenn. 2015. “New York State Officially Bans Fracking.” Syracuse.com, June 
29. Available at www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/new_york_officially_
bans_hydrofracking.html. Accessed October 20, 2016.

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2015. “Final Supplemental 
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Min-
ing Regulatory Program: Findings Statement,” New York. Available at www.dec 
.ny.gov/energy/75370.html. Accessed October 3, 2016.

Eaton, Timothy T. 2013. “Science- Based Decision- Making on Complex Issues: Mar-
cellus Shale Gas Hydrofracking and New York City Water Supply.” Science of the 
Total Environment 461/462 (September): 158–169.

Evensen Darrick T., Christopher E. Clarke, and Richard C. Stedman. 2013. “A New 
York or Pennsylvania State of Mind: Social Representations of Gas Development 
in the Marcellus Shale.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 4 (March): 
65–77.

Glick, David, and Zoe Friedland. 2014. “How Often Do States Study Each Other? 
Evidence of Policy Knowledge Diffusion.” American Politics Research 42 (Novem-
ber): 956–985.

Gray, Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political 
Science Review 67 (December): 1174–1185.

Harper, John A. 2008. “The Marcellus Shale—an Old ‘New’ Gas Reserve in Pennsyl-
vania.” Pennsylvania Geology 38 (Spring): 2–13.

Jacquet, Jeffrey B. 2012. “Landowner Attitudes toward Natural Gas and Wind 
Farm Development in Northern Pennsylvania.” Energy Policy 50 (November): 
677–688.

Johnson, Martin, Paul Brace, and Kevin Arceneaux. 2005. “Public Opinion and 
Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental 
Attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly 86 (March): 87–108.

Kriesky, Jill, Bernard Goldstein, Katrina Zell, and Scott Beach. 2013. “Differing Opin-
ions about Natural Gas Drilling in Two Adjacent Counties with Different Levels 
of Drilling Activity. Energy Policy 58 (July): 228–236.

Lachapelle, Erick, and Eric Montpetit. 2014. “Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fractur-
ing in the Province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania.” 
Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 17 (October): 1–21.

Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” 
American Journal of Political Science 41 (July): 738–770.

Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion. 
Political Research Quarterly 54 (March): 103–124.

Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. 2011. “Pennsylvania Marcellus 
Shale Survey.” Available at www.muhlenberg.edu/main/aboutus/polling/surveys/ 
pennsylvania/public_policy.html. Accessed August 18, 2016. 

Pacheco, Julianna. 2013. “The Thermostatic Model of Responsiveness in the Ameri-
can States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13 (September): 306–332.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2012. “More Opposition to 
Increased Use of Fracking.” Available at www.people- press.org/2013/09/26/ 
continued-support-for-keystone-xl-pipeline/9-26-13-7/. Accessed August 18,
2016.

            



68 eriCk laChapelle

———. 2015. “How Americans View the Top Energy and Environmental Issues.” 
Available at www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/environment-energy-2/.
Accessed August 18, 2016.

Rabe, Barry G. 2014. “Shale Play Politics: The Intergovernmental Odyssey of American 
Shale Governance.” Environmental Science and Technology 48 (15): 8369–8375.

Rabe, Barry G., and Christopher Borick. 2011. “Fracking for Natural Gas: Public 
Opinion on State Policy Options.” Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and 
Urban Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. 

———. 2012. “Pennsylvania’s Fracking Case: State and Local Governance Challenges.” 
Brookings: Upfront, December. Available at www.brookings.edu/blogs/up- front/
posts/2013/12/24- pennsylvania- fracking- state- local-g overnance- challenges.

———. 2013. “Conventional Politics for Unconventional Drilling? Lessons from 
Pennsylvania’s Early Move into Fracking Policy Development.” Review of Policy 
Research 30 (May): 321–340. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12018.

Schneider, Sandra, William G. Jacoby, and Daniel C. Lewis. 2011. “Public Opinion 
toward Intergovernmental Policy Responsibilities.” Publius: The Journal of Fed-
eralism 41 (Winter): 1–30.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2014. “Cornucopia or Curse? Reviewing the Costs and Ben-
efits of Shale Gas Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking).” Renewable and Sustainable 
Energy Reviews 37 (September): 249–264. 

Stedman, Richard C., Jeffrey B. Jacquet, Matthew R. Filteau, Fern K. Willits, Kathryn 
J. Brasier, and Diane K. McLaughlin. 2012. “Marcellus Shale Gas Development 
and New Boomtown Research: Views of New York and Pennsylvania Residents.” 
Journal of Environmental Practice 14 (December): 287–298.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012. Avail-
able at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf. Accessed August 20, 2016.

———. 2014. “Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production.” U.S. Energy Infor-
mation Administration, 2014. Available at www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_
dcu_smi_m.htm. Accessed August 20, 2016.

Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” 
American Political Science Review 67 (September): 1174–1185.

Warner, Barbara, and Jennifer Shapiro. 2013. “Fractured, Fragmented Federalism: 
A Study in Fracking Regulatory Policy.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43 
(Summer): 474–496.

Wright, Gerald C., Robert S. Erikson, and John P. McIver. 1993. Statehouse Democ-
racy: Public Opinion, Politics and Policy in the American States. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.

       

erick lachapelle, PhD, is an associate professor of political science at the University 
of Montreal where he teaches courses on comparative environmental politics, research 
methods, and public policy. He is the lead researcher behind the Canadian Surveys on 
Energy and the Environment. Erick ’s research examines the comparative politics of cli-
mate change, environmental public opinion, and political communication around climate 
policy and the transition toward a clean economy. Erick’s research has appeared in such 
venues as Policy Sciences, Policy Studies Journal, Energy Policy, Climate Policy, and Global 
Environmental Politics, among others.


	Structure Bookmarks
	Hydraulic Fracturing: The Pennsylvania  and New York Context
	Research Questions and Literature Review
	Data and Methods
	Cross-Border Perspectives
	Conclusion




