| Summary/Abstract |
Growing awareness of the potential for some energy-related activities to induce earthquakes has created a need to understand how the public evaluates the risks of induced earthquakes versus the benefits of energy development. To address this need, this study presents a web survey that used a between-subjects factorial experimental design to explore the views of 325 U.S. adults, who were asked about their experiences with earthquakes; risk perceptions related to different causes of earthquakes (e.g., natural versus induced); and acceptability of earthquakes depending on the benefits, beneficiaries, and decision making process. The results found that participants had more negative feelings toward induced versus naturally occurring earthquakes. Although they judged no earthquake as “acceptable,” participants rated induced earthquakes significantly less acceptable than naturally occurring ones. Attributing the benefits to the provision of renewable energy or climate change mitigation did not increase induced earthquake acceptability, and no particular beneficiary made earthquakes more acceptable, although private companies as beneficiaries made earthquakes less acceptable. Finally, induced earthquake acceptability was significantly higher when people believed that people like them had a voice in the decision to implement the technology that caused the earthquake, underscoring the importance of public engagement in the development of energy technologies.
|