Human-induced seismicity and the public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: A vignette experiment

•Public debate over HF polarized by positions on fossil fuel sector.•Notion of induced seismicity risks not their intensity reduces HF acceptance.•Compensation mechanism unable to offset negative impacts of perceived risks.•Vignette experiments viable CE alternative when norms and risk perceptions matter. Despite years of debate, hydraulic fracturing (HF) remains controversial. While the balance of perceived economic benefits and environmental costs of “fracking” has generated much debate, the question of whether citizens could accept the risk of induced earthquakes from HF remains largely unanswered. This paper uses data from a survey-based vignette experiment with (n=1,300) individuals in Western Canada to analyze factors in public perceptions and the acceptance of HF projects. Scenario attributes explicitly address the role of distributional and procedural fairness in the siting of projects together with seismicity risks modelled by a modified Mercalli intensity scale. The analysis controls for proximity and common negative environmental externalities of HF. Random effects models suggest that the notion of earthquake risks alone stands in the way of public acceptance of HF; independent of where individuals stand on the HF controversy. Affiliation with the energy industry, perceived knowledge of HF, and support for and/or concerns with different energy sources and their environmental impacts are found to shape individuals’ perceptions, including benefits and risks, and the overall acceptability of HF projects. We find this polarization to extend to (mis-)trust in different sector and policy stakeholders.