A town divided: Community values and attitudes towards coal seam gas development in Gloucester, Australia

Abstract The 2300-person community of Gloucester, New South Wales in Australia anticipated the prospect of coal seam gas (CSG) development, a form of unconventional natural gas, for nearly a decade before a 2016 decision to cancel the project. Gloucester has become well known for its extreme level of community division focused on coal seam gas development: residents report conflicts ranging from blocked access to services through death threats and active boycotts of businesses. We conducted open-ended interviews, participant observation, and mail surveys in Gloucester in late 2015 with the goal of understanding the deeper issues associated with CSG-related conflict in Gloucester. We argue that the long period of stagnant uncertainty associated with the potential development was a major contributor to the amplitude of the community divide. The major conflict focused on whether a coal seam gas development would threaten or accelerate progress toward shared goals of securing Gloucester’s future and maintaining residents’ quality of life. We posit that exacerbating factors include the existence of highly concrete visions of what Gloucester would be like in futures with or without gas and the sense that the community was not empowered to choose whether or not to pursue local gas development.

[1]  S. Malin,et al.  A devil's bargain: Rural environmental injustices and hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania's farms , 2016 .

[2]  T. Loder Spaces of consent and the making of fracking subjects in North Dakota: A view from two corporate community forums , 2016 .

[3]  G. Laudel,et al.  Life With and Without Coding: Two Methods for Early-Stage Data Analysis in Qualitative Research Aiming at Causal Explanations , 2013 .

[4]  N. Ajami,et al.  A Framework for Building Efficient Environmental Permitting Processes , 2017 .

[5]  R. Costanza,et al.  Evaluation of social externalities in regional communities affected by coal seam gas projects: A case study from Southeast Queensland , 2017 .

[6]  J. Vaske,et al.  Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior , 2001 .

[7]  J. Moon,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility , 2004 .

[8]  C. Gross,et al.  Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance , 2007 .

[9]  Kim de Rijke,et al.  Unconventional gas developments and the politics of risk and knowledge in Australia , 2016 .

[10]  Abraham S. D. Tidwell,et al.  The everyday lives of energy transitions: Contested sociotechnical imaginaries in the American West , 2016, Social studies of science.

[11]  R. Gifford,et al.  Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework , 2010 .

[12]  M. Hidalgo,et al.  PLACE ATTACHMENT AND PLACE IDENTITY IN NATIVES AND NON-NATIVES , 2007 .

[13]  Matthew R Filteau Go Back to Texas, Gas Bastards! How a Newcomer Population of Itinerant Energy Workers Manage Dirty Work Stigma in the Marcellus Shale Region , 2015 .

[14]  Kim de Rijke,et al.  Aboriginal engagement and agreement-making with a rapidly developing resource industry: coal seam gas development in Australia , 2014 .

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

[16]  David J Lloyd,et al.  Community perspectives of natural resource extraction: coal-seam gas mining and social identity in Eastern Australia , 2013 .

[17]  Aaron C. Kay,et al.  The psychological advantage of unfalsifiability: the appeal of untestable religious and political ideologies. , 2015, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  Meg Sherval,et al.  Competing Perceptions of the Rural Idyll: responses to threats from coal seam gas development in Gloucester, NSW, Australia , 2014 .

[19]  Jeanne Moore,et al.  PLACING HOME IN CONTEXT , 2000 .

[20]  Heather A. Lukacs,et al.  The Relationship of Place Re-Making and Watershed Group Participation in Appalachia , 2014 .

[21]  S. Gudergan,et al.  Understanding the psychological impact of unconventional gas developments in affected communities , 2017 .

[22]  D. Cooley,et al.  Attitudes toward shale oil development in western North Dakota: The role of place based community values in attitude formation , 2016 .

[23]  J. Lacey,et al.  Using social contract to inform social licence to operate: an application in the Australian coal seam gas industry , 2014 .

[24]  J. Jenkins,et al.  Boom and bust methodology: Opportunities and challenges with conducting research at sites of resource extraction , 2015 .

[25]  Kim de Rijke Coal seam gas and social impact assessment: an anthropological contribution to current debates and practices , 2013 .

[26]  Heather A. Lukacs,et al.  Beyond formal groups: neighboring acts and watershed protection in Appalachia , 2016 .

[27]  Sara K. Yeo,et al.  The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[28]  K. Nkansah,et al.  Divided Rights, Expanded Conflict: Split Estate Impacts on Surface Owner Perceptions of Shale Gas Drilling , 2015, Land Economics.

[29]  M. Brockmann Problematising short-term participant observation and multi-method ethnographic studies , 2011 .

[30]  The sustainability agenda of the minerals and energy supply and demand network: an integrative analysis of ecological, ethical, economic, and technological dimensions , 2013 .

[31]  D. Hine,et al.  Fracked: Coal seam gas extraction and farmers’ mental health , 2016 .

[32]  John S. Johnson,et al.  “No Fracking Way!” Documentary Film, Discursive Opportunity, and Local Opposition against Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013 , 2015 .

[33]  James McCarthy,et al.  Scale, shale, and the state: political ecologies and legal geographies of shale gas development in Pennsylvania , 2014, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[34]  Marit Vorkinn,et al.  Environmental Concern in a Local Context , 2001 .

[35]  Ian G. Cronshaw,et al.  A tale of two states: Development and regulation of coal bed methane extraction in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia , 2016 .

[36]  A. Barry,et al.  Material Politics: Disputes Along the Pipeline , 2013 .

[37]  D. P. Ferguson,et al.  “Fracking democracy”: Issue management and locus of policy decision-making in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling debate , 2013 .

[38]  Giorel Curran Social licence, corporate social responsibility and coal seam gas: framing the new political dynamics of contestation , 2017 .

[39]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[40]  R. Stedman Toward a Social Psychology of Place , 2002 .

[41]  M. Makki,et al.  Place, identity and stigma: blocks and the ‘blockies’ of Tara, Queensland, Australia , 2017 .

[42]  R. Lejano,et al.  What’s the story? Creating and sustaining environmental networks , 2014 .

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

[44]  P. Devine‐Wright Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action , 2009 .

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

[46]  Anna J. Willow,et al.  Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking , 2014 .

[47]  R. Colvin,et al.  Strange bedfellows or an aligning of values? exploration of stakeholder values in an alliance of concerned citizens against coal seam gas mining , 2015 .

[48]  Rod McCrea,et al.  Resilience in a Changing Community Landscape of Coal Seam Gas: Chinchilla in Southern , 2013 .

[49]  D. Scott Slocombe,et al.  Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories , 2012 .

[50]  Abby Kinchy,et al.  Quiet voices in the fracking debate: Ambivalence, nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania) , 2016 .

[51]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea , 2009 .