Public perceptions of shale gas operations in the USA and Canada: a review of evidence

M4ShaleGas stands for Measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas and is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The main goal of the M4ShaleGas project is to study and evaluate potential risks and impacts of shale gas exploration and exploitation. The focus lies on four main areas of potential impact: the subsurface, the surface, the atmosphere, and social impacts. The European Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical fuel for the transformation of the energy system in the direction of lower CO2 emissions and more renewable energy. Shale gas may contribute to this transformation. Shale gas is – by definition – a natural gas found trapped in shale, a fine grained sedimentary rock composed of mud. There are several concerns related to shale gas exploration and production, many of them being associated with hydraulic fracturing operations that are performed to stimulate gas flow in the shales. Potential risks and concerns include for example the fate of chemical compounds in the used hydraulic fracturing and drilling fluids and their potential impact on shallow ground water. The fracturing process may also induce small magnitude earthquakes. There is also an ongoing debate on greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas (CO2 and methane) and its energy efficiency compared to other energy sources There is a strong need for a better European knowledge base on shale gas operations and their environmental impacts particularly, if shale gas shall play a role in Europe’s energy mix in the coming decennia. M4ShaleGas’ main goal is to build such a knowledge base, including an inventory of best practices that minimise risks and impacts of shale gas exploration and production in Europe, as well as best practices for public engagement. The M4ShaleGas project is carried out by 18 European research institutions and is coordinated by TNO-Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research

[1]  Communities experiencing shale gas development , 2015 .

[2]  Daniel J. Mallinson,et al.  Upstream influence: The positive impact of PAC contributions on Marcellus Shale roll call votes in Pennsylvania , 2014 .

[3]  L. Glenna,et al.  Local Impacts of Unconventional Gas Development within Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Region: Gauging Boomtown Development through the Perspectives of Educational Administrators , 2014 .

[4]  N. Pidgeon.  Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research , 1998 .

[5]  A. Spence,et al.  Public values for energy system change , 2015 .

[6]  Christina Demski,et al.  Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  W. Ellsworth.  Injection-Induced Earthquakes , 2013, Science.

[8]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Rationality and ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain , 1982 .

[9]  S. Malin.  There’s no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland , 2014, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[10]  Z. Shipton.  Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. , 2012 .

[11]  Cliff Frohlich,et al.  Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Richard C. Stedman,et al.  The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change , 2014 .

[13]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  “Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing , 2014 .

[14]  How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012? , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[15]  Erick Lachapelle,et al.  Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania , 2014 .

[16]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Transforming the UK energy system: public values, attitudes and acceptability: synthesis report , 2013 .

[17]  G. Theodori,et al.  Public Perception of the Natural Gas Industry: Data from the Barnett Shale , 2012 .

[18]  Jeffrey Jacquet,et al.  Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Public Perceptions of Expert Credibility on Policy Issues: The Role of Expert Framing and Political Worldviews , 2014 .

[20]  A M Kellerer,et al.  Risk perception , 1993, Nature.

[21]  R. Kasperson,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk , 2003 .

[22]  Éric Montpetit,et al.  Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the Province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania , 2014 .

[23]  J. Simonelli.  Home rule and natural gas development in New York: civil fracking rights , 2014 .

[24]  Richard C. Stedman,et al.  NATURAL GAS LANDOWNER COALITIONS IN NEW YORK STATE: EMERGING BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT , 2011 .

[25]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  From nuclear to renewable: Energy system transformation and public attitudes , 2012 .

[26]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study , 2010 .

[27]  R. Stedman,et al.  Perceived Impacts from Wind Farm and Natural Gas Development in Northern Pennsylvania , 2013 .

[28]  Jean-Pascal Assailly,et al.  The Psychology of Risk , 2012 .

[29]  Kevin Anderson,et al.  Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts , 2011 .

[30]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology , 2015 .

[31]  D. Kahan,et al.  Cultural cognition of scientific consensus , 2011 .

[32]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[33]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data , 2009 .

[34]  Timothy W. Kelsey,et al.  RESIDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL GAS IN THE MARCELLUS SHALE: A COMPARISON OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK CASES * , 2011 .

[35]  K. Schafft,et al.  School and Community Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing Within Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Region, and the Dilemmas of Educational Leadership in Gasfield Boomtowns , 2014 .

[36]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale , 2014, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[37]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Gender, ethical voices, and UK nuclear energy policy in the post-Fukushima era , 2015 .

[38]  Gene L. Theodori,et al.  Public Perception of Desalinated Water from Oil and Gas Field Operations: Data from Texas , 2009 .

[39]  W. Ellsworth,et al.  Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection , 2015, Science.

[40]  Simona L. Perry.  Development, Land Use, and Collective Trauma: The Marcellus Shale Gas Boom in Rural Pennsylvania , 2012 .

[41]  Anna J. Willow,et al.  The contested landscape of unconventional energy development: a report from Ohio's shale gas country , 2014, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[42]  Brigitte Nerlich,et al.  Fracking on YouTube: Exploring Risks, Benefits and Human Values , 2014 .

[43]  Anthony A Leiserowitz,et al.  American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[44]  Bernard D Goldstein,et al.  Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region , 2013, International journal of occupational and environmental health.

[45]  Jeffrey Jacquet,et al.  Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania , 2012 .

[46]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[47]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[48]  Erica Brown,et al.  The National Surveys on Energy and Environment Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania , 2013 .

[49]  Benjamin Sovacool.  Cornucopia or Curse? Reviewing the Costs and Benefits of Shale Gas Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) , 2014 .

[50]  Nobuo Tanaka,et al.  World Energy Outlook 2009 , 2009 .

[51]  R. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions , 1990 .

[52]  Richard C. Stedman,et al.  Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Marcellus Shale Gas Development and New Boomtown Research: Views of New York and Pennsylvania Residents , 2012 .

[53]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[54]  Scott R. Beach,et al.  Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity , 2013 .

[55]  Brooklynn J. Anderson,et al.  Local Leaders’ Perceptions of Energy Development in the Barnett Shale , 2009 .

[56]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[57]  D. Davidson,et al.  Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns , 1996 .

[58]  R. Jackson,et al.  Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[59]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[60]  Daniel J. Fiorino.  Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms , 1990 .

[61]  Anna J. Willow.  The new politics of environmental degradation: un/expected landscapes of disempowerment and vulnerability , 2014 .

[62]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options , 2013 .

[63]  Anthony E. Ladd.  Stakeholder Perceptions of Socioenvironmental Impacts from Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Haynesville Shale , 2013 .

[64]  A. Spence,et al.  The Psychological Distance of Climate Change , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[65]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[66]  J. Abad,et al.  Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality , 2013, Science.

[67]  S. Roeser,et al.  The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era , 2015 .

[68]  Gene L. Theodori,et al.  Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. , 2009 .

[69]  G. Theodori.  Perception of the Natural Gas Industry and Engagement in Individual Civic Actions , 2013 .

[70]  Thomas M. Ivacko,et al.  Fracking as a Community Issue in Michigan , 2014 .

[71]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[72]  R. Kasperson,et al.  The Public Acceptance of New Energy Technologies , 2013, Daedalus.

[73]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  What's the 'fracking' problem? One word can't say it all , 2014 .

[74]  K. Schafft,et al.  Opportunity, Ambivalence, and Youth Perspectives on Community Change in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Region , 2015 .

[75]  L. Glenna,et al.  The Relationship between Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania and Local Perceptions of Risk and Opportunity , 2013 .

[76]  Policy Decisions on Shale Gas Development ('Fracking'): The Insufficiency of Science and Necessity of Moral Thought , 2015 .

[77]  SIMONA L. PERRY,et al.  Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale , 2013, New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS.

[78]  Fracking's Future in a Coal Mining Past: Subjectivity Undermined , 2013 .

[79]  Gene L. Theodori,et al.  Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: Views from the public in the Marcellus Shale , 2014 .

[80]  Brooklynn J. Wynveen,et al.  A THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF LOCAL RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF BARNETT SHALE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT * , 2011 .

[81]  B. Rabe,et al.  Fracking for Natural Gas: Public Opinion on State Policy Options , 2011 .

[82]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Constructing Responsibilities for Risk: Negotiating Citizen — State Relationships , 2008 .