Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK

Shale gas and oil production in the US has increased rapidly in the past decade, while interest in prospective development has also arisen in the UK. In both countries, shale resources and the method of their extraction (hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’) have been met with opposition amid concerns about impacts on water, greenhouse gas emissions, and health effects. Here we report the findings of a qualitative, cross-national deliberation study of public perceptions of shale development in UK and US locations not yet subject to extensive shale development. When presented with a carefully calibrated range of risks and benefits, participants’ discourse focused on risks or doubts about benefits, and potential impacts were viewed as inequitably distributed. Participants drew on direct, place-based experiences as well as national contexts in deliberating shale development. These findings suggest that shale gas development already evokes a similar ‘signature’ of risk across the US and UK. Shale gas and oil production and prospective development are increasing, but methods for shale extraction (‘fracking’) have been met with opposition. This study shows that informed discourse around shale development focussed on risks or doubts about benefits in a similar manner across the US and UK.

[1]  Eric R. A. N. Smith,et al.  The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling , 2010, Public understanding of science.

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

[3]  H. Herzog,et al.  American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  John H. Evans.  Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2007 .

[5]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom , 2015, Public understanding of science.

[6]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Good Neighbours, Public Relations and Bribes: The Politics and Perceptions of Community Benefit Provision in Renewable Energy Development in the UK , 2010 .

[7]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values , 1997, Virology.

[8]  M. Morris.  Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[9]  P. Simmons,et al.  Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste , 2008, Public understanding of science.

[10]  Amelia M. Jamison,et al.  Place-based perceptions of the impacts of fracking along the Marcellus Shale. , 2016, Social science & medicine.

[11]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry , 2007 .

[12]  Ian Scoones,et al.  Science and citizens : globalization and the challenge of engagement , 2006 .

[13]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Regular ArticleProtected Values , 1997 .

[14]  P. Stern,et al.  Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: The case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States , 2015 .

[15]  Dustin Cable,et al.  Environmental Justice , 2003 .

[16]  P. Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

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

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

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

[20]  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 .

[21]  Thomas C. Beierle.  Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions , 2010 .

[22]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[23]  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.

[24]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[25]  S. Lipset,et al.  American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword , 1997 .

[26]  E. Carlson.  :Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2008 .

[27]  David Parkinson,et al.  Risk: Analysis, perception and management. report of a Royal Society Study Group: Pp 201. The Royal Society. 1992. Paperback £15.50 ISBN 0 85403 467 6 , 1993 .

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

[29]  J. Lezaun,et al.  Crafting a public for geoengineering , 2015, Public understanding of science.

[30]  A. Bryman,et al.  Handbook of data analysis , 2004 .

[31]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 2000 .

[32]  M. Cotton.  Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses , 2015 .

[33]  L. Whitmarsh,et al.  UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support , 2015 .

[34]  P. Ekins,et al.  The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C , 2015, Nature.

[35]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada , 2017 .

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

[37]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

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

[39]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[40]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Bringing values and deliberation to science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: Social amplification of risk in participation: two case studies , 2003 .

[42]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Seeing futures now: Emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems , 2017 .

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

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

[45]  Paul Upham,et al.  Addressing social representations in socio-technical transitions with the case of shale gas , 2015 .

[46]  Edwina Barvosa.  Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA , 2015, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[47]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK , 2014 .

[48]  Christian E. H. Beaudrie,et al.  Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[49]  Barbara Herr Harthorn,et al.  Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[50]  G. Michael Weiksner,et al.  Democracy in motion : evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement , 2012 .

[51]  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.

[52]  Ragnar E. Löfstedt,et al.  Facility Siting : Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning , 2004 .

[53]  Ulrich Fiedeler,et al.  Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies , 2011 .

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

[55]  Barbara Herr Harthorn,et al.  Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[57]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  Regional newspaper coverage of shale gas development across Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania: Similarities, differences, and lessons , 2016 .

[58]  R. Stedman,et al.  Research Articles: Risk Perceptions of Natural Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale , 2013 .

[59]  K. Chan,et al.  Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values , 2012 .

[60]  J. Graham,et al.  The Effect of Community Reinvestment Funds on Local Acceptance of Unconventional Gas Development , 2016 .

[61]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

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

[63]  E. Maibach,et al.  The effect of industry activities on public support for ‘fracking’ , 2016 .

[64]  P. Stern,et al.  Public and stakeholder participation for managing and reducing the risks of shale gas development. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[65]  N. Bowles.  American exceptionalism: a double-edged sword , 1996 .