Article

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

  • Nature Energy 2, Article number: 17054 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.54
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

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.

  • Subscribe to Nature Energy for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

     & The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015).

  2. 2.

    et al. Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science 347, 830–831 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing (Royal Society, 2012).

  4. 4.

     & The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57, 1285–1304 (2014).

  5. 5.

     & in Communicating Risk (eds Crichton, J., Candlin, C. N. & Firkins, A. S.) 155–170 (Palgrave MacMillan, 2016).

  6. 6.

    et al. Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada. WIREs Clim. Change (2017).

  7. 7.

    , ,  & Public and stakeholder participation for managing and reducing the risks of shale gas development. Environ. Sci. Tech. 48, 8388–8396 (2014).

  8. 8.

     & Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions (Resources for the Future, 2002).

  9. 9.

     & Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academies, 1996).

  10. 10.

     & Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Pub. Und. Sci. 16, 346–364 (2007).

  11. 11.

    in Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement (eds Leach, M., Scoones, I. & Wynne, B.) 218–231 (Zed Books, 2005).

  12. 12.

    Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14081–14087 (2013).

  13. 13.

    , , ,  & Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 59–69 (2015).

  14. 14.

    , , ,  & Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13606–13613 (2014).

  15. 15.

     & Facility Siting: Risk Power and Identity in Land Use Planning (Earthscan, 2004).

  16. 16.

    , ,  & Addressing social representations in socio-technical transitions with the case of shale gas. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 16, 120–141 (2015).

  17. 17.

    et al. Seeing futures now: emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 1–12 (2017).

  18. 18.

    , , ,  & Regional newspaper coverage of shale gas development across Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania: similarities, differences, and lessons. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 119–132 (2016).

  19. 19.

    , ,  & Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: the case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8, 139–150 (2015).

  20. 20.

    et al. UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl. Energy 160, 419–430 (2015).

  21. 21.

    ,  & A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4, 65–77 (2014).

  22. 22.

    ,  & Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12, 215–232 (1992).

  23. 23.

    , , ,  & in Risk—Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group (ed. Warner, F.) 89–134 (Royal Society, 1992).

  24. 24.

    et al. Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 19, 104–112 (2013).

  25. 25.

    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. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 26, 32–61 (2011).

  26. 26.

    ,  & The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32, 957–972 (2012).

  27. 27.

    Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37, 3242–3249 (2009).

  28. 28.

    Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5, 497–507 (2015).

  29. 29.

    , , ,  & Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat. Nanotech. 4, 752–758 (2009).

  30. 30.

    ,  & in Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies (eds Zülsdorf, T. B. et al.) 75–89 (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011).

  31. 31.

    , ,  & Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Publ. Und. Sci. 26, 89–104 (2017).

  32. 32.

    , , ,  & Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Publ. Und. Sci. 17, 145–169 (2008).

  33. 33.

    et al. Place-based perceptions of the impacts of fracking along the Marcellus Shale. Soc. Sci. Med. 151, 27–37 (2016).

  34. 34.

    in Risks, Rewards and Regulation of Unconventional Gas (eds Grafton, Q., Cronshaw, I. & Moore, M.) 167–196 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).

  35. 35.

    et al. The effect of community reinvestment funds on local acceptance of unconventional gas development. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 5, 131–156 (2016).

  36. 36.

    ,  & Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 12, 255–275 (2010).

  37. 37.

    , ,  & The effect of industry activities on public support for ‘fracking’. Environ. Policy 25, 593–612 (2016).

  38. 38.

    ,  & Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 34, 405–430 (2009).

  39. 39.

    , ,  & Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy 58, 228–236 (2013).

  40. 40.

    et al. American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2093–2098 (2006).

  41. 41.

    , ,  & Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

  42. 42.

    Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton Univ. Press, 2005).

  43. 43.

    American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword (WW Norton and Company, 1996).

  44. 44.

    ,  & Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK. Energy Policy 66, 369–378 (2014).

  45. 45.

     & Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70, 1–16 (1997).

  46. 46.

    ,  & Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18 (2012).

  47. 47.

    in The Social Amplification of Risk (eds Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. K. & Slovic, P.) 374–401 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

  48. 48.

    , , ,  & The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Publ. Und. Sci. 19, 514–527 (2010).

  49. 49.

    et al. Risk perceptions of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Environ. Pract. 15, 108–122 (2013).

  50. 50.

     & Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York State: emerging benefits of collective natural resource management. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 26, 62–91 (2011).

  51. 51.

    Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environ. Plan. A 47, 1944–1962 (2015).

  52. 52.

     & Local leaders’ perceptions of energy development in the Barnett shale. South. Rural Sociol. 24, 113–129 (2009).

  53. 53.

    ,  & Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent US nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 31, 1734–1748 (2011).

  54. 54.

     & Crafting a public for geoengineering. Publ. Und. Sci. (2015).

  55. 55.

    et al. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81, 131–140 (2015).

  56. 56.

    ,  & Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer, 1995).

  57. 57.

     & Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (National Academies, 2008).

  58. 58.

    , ,  & Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  59. 59.

     & in Handbook of Data Analysis (eds Hardy, M. & Bryman, A.) 625–648 (Sage, 2004).

  60. 60.

     & From nuclear to renewable: energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bull. Atom. Sci. 68, 41–51 (2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in Cooperative Agreement SES-0938099 and grant SES-1535193. Supplemental funding came from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 640715. Views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We would like to thank all of our participants in the US and UK, without whom this research would not have been possible, and the members of our expert panel for their time and expertise. We also thank A. Hasell, L. Stevenson, C. Enders, R. Sposato and E. Roberts for assistance in workshops and data analysis.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Understanding Risk Group and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Building, 70 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

    • Merryn Thomas
    •  & Nick Pidgeon
  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society and Department of Anthropology, University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), Santa Barbara, California 93106-3210, USA

    • Tristan Partridge
    •  & Barbara Herr Harthorn

Authors

  1. Search for Merryn Thomas in:

  2. Search for Tristan Partridge in:

  3. Search for Barbara Herr Harthorn in:

  4. Search for Nick Pidgeon in:

Contributions

M.T., T.P., N.P. and B.H.H. designed and performed the research; M.T. and T.P. analysed the data; M.T., T.P., N.P. and B.H.H. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Pidgeon.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data 1

    Workshop protocol (US/UK).

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Data 2

    PowerPoint presentation (US/UK).

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Data 3

    Advantages and disadvantages posters (US/UK).

  4. 4.

    Supplementary Data 4

    Extra information sheets for poster task (US/UK).

  5. 5.

    Supplementary Data 5

    Quotes task (US/UK).

  6. 6.

    Supplementary Data 6

    Cards used in role playing task (US/UK).