Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions

Lonnquist, Sean; Gallagher, Deborah Rigling

doi:10.1111/ropr.12423

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This dual and conflicting mission led to a decade of “oil and gas wars” in the state of Colorado during the 2010s as environmental groups battled the oil and gas industry about the regulation and practice of oil and gas drilling utilizing hydraulic fracturing in the state (Heikkila, Pierce, et al, 2014; Hutchins & Ray, 2017; Olofsson, 2022). This polarized policy debate in Colorado is consistent with research on policy debates about hydraulic fracturing in other states as well, such as in Pennsylvania (Daneri et al, 2021; Lonnquist & Gallagher, 2021) and New York (Heikkila, Weible, & Pierce, 2014; Pattison et al, 2022; Weible & Heikkila, 2016), as well as in other countries such as the United Kingdom (Stephan, 2020), Canada (Millar, 2020) and France (Moyson et al, 2022).…”

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 79%

How anger and fear influence policy narratives: Advocacy and regulation of oil and gas drilling in Colorado

Pierce

Miller‐Stevens

Hicks

et al. 2022

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When advocating for policy change, coalitions rely on various elements and strategies of policy narratives, including emotions. However, past research on the Narrative Policy Framework, and more broadly on the policy process, has largely ignored the role of emotions. This paper argues that emotions, such as anger and fear, are central to how coalitions advocate for policy change. It explores the role of anger and fear in policy narratives by examining the oral testimony (n = 474) given over four legislative committee hearings in March 2019 concerning Colorado Senate Bill 19‐181. This bill changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. This research finds the coalition that successfully supported the bill used anger towards the oil and gas industry, while those that opposed the bill relied more on fear of the uncertain consequences of the bill. It also finds the coalition that opposed the bill relied on self‐characterization as heroes and victims, which was a failed strategy. The implications for this research on the Narrative Policy Framework and, more broadly, for the policy process and advocacy are discussed.

show abstract