IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fracking and metaphor: Analysing newspaper discourse in the USA, Australia and the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Cotton, Matthew
  • Barkemeyer, Ralf
  • Renzi, Barbara Gabriella
  • Napolitano, Giulio

Abstract

We apply a mixed-method design centred on the deployment of metaphors to explore the role that language plays in the structuring of the public discourses of unconventional hydrocarbon development (UHD) across three major developed economies. We analyse UHD-related metaphorical devices deployed in broadsheet newspapers in Australia, the UK and the USA between January 2006 and May 2018. We develop an innovative Type Hierarchy Approach to metaphors by mapping through directed graph hierarchies. These allow concept-mapping analysis in terms of supertypes and subtypes, i.e. concepts ordered in terms of generality and inclusion as in “rapid expansion” → “explosion”. We find two broad discourses, each containing metaphorical constructions: economic gain across temporal horizons (incorporating boom, bonanza, revolution and death metaphors); and risk tolerance and decision-making (incorporating gamble and insanity metaphors). At the level of individual metaphors, deployment trends and patterns can be mapped along country borders rather than for example political alignment. Boom and bonanza appear most widespread in the USA, whereas UHD as a revolution is more closely associated with UK newspapers. Over time, UHD-related metaphor use decreases in all three countries, potentially reflecting an increasing public acceptance of UHD and moving shale gas from unconventional to conventional hydrocarbon development.

Suggested Citation

  • Cotton, Matthew & Barkemeyer, Ralf & Renzi, Barbara Gabriella & Napolitano, Giulio, 2019. "Fracking and metaphor: Analysing newspaper discourse in the USA, Australia and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:166:y:2019:i:c:8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919303520
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106426?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Mason & Lucija A. Muehlenbachs & Sheila M. Olmstead, 2015. "The Economics of Shale Gas Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 269-289, October.
    2. Amanda Poole & Anastasia Hudgins, 2014. "“I care more about this place, because I fought for it”: exploring the political ecology of fracking in an ethnographic field school," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 37-46, March.
    3. Drews, Stefan & Antal, Miklós, 2016. "Degrowth: A “missile word” that backfires?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 182-187.
    4. Ralf Barkemeyer & Frank Figge & Diane Holt, 2013. "Sustainability-Related Media Coverage and Socioeconomic Development: A Regional and North–South Perspective," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(4), pages 716-740, August.
    5. Jaspal, Rusi & Nerlich, Brigitte & Lemańcyzk, Szczepan, 2014. "Fracking in the Polish press: Geopolitics and national identity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 253-261.
    6. Ayres, Robert U., 2004. "On the life cycle metaphor: where ecology and economics diverge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 425-438, April.
    7. Jenner, Steffen & Lamadrid, Alberto J., 2013. "Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 442-453.
    8. Bromley, Daniel W., 2007. "Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond "market failure"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 676-683, September.
    9. Shaw, Christopher & Nerlich, Brigitte, 2015. "Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 34-40.
    10. Nilsen, Heidi Rapp, 2010. "The joint discourse 'reflexive sustainable development' -- From weak towards strong sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 495-501, January.
    11. Paul H Thibodeau & Lera Boroditsky, 2013. "Natural Language Metaphors Covertly Influence Reasoning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, January.
    12. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    13. Paul H Thibodeau & Lera Boroditsky, 2011. "Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, February.
    14. Norgaard, Richard B., 1995. "Metaphors we might survive by," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 129-131, November.
    15. Norton, Bryan G. & Noonan, Douglas, 2007. "Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 664-675, September.
    16. Hilligoss, Brian, 2014. "Selling patients and other metaphors: A discourse analysis of the interpretive frames that shape emergency department admission handoffs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 119-128.
    17. Ison, Ray & Blackmore, Chris & Iaquinto, Benjamin L., 2013. "Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 34-42.
    18. Komarek, Timothy M., 2016. "Labor market dynamics and the unconventional natural gas boom: Evidence from the Marcellus region," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 1-17.
    19. Rasmussen, Mattias Borg & Lund, Christian, 2018. "Reconfiguring Frontier Spaces: The territorialization of resource control," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 388-399.
    20. Charles Davis & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2014. "Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(1), pages 1-16, January.
    21. Ralf Barkemeyer & Philippe Givry & Frank Figge, 2018. "Trends and patterns in sustainability-related media coverage: A classification of issue-level attention," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(5), pages 937-962, August.
    22. Klain, Sarah C. & Satterfield, Terre A. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2014. "What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 310-320.
    23. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    4. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    6. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    7. Zhou, Zhongbing & Qin, Quande, 2020. "Epistemological dominance and ignorance of the comparative advantages of China's shale gas: Evidence from international scientific journals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    9. Antonio Crego & José Ramón Yela & Rita Ozores-Pérez & Pablo Riesco-Matías & María Ángeles Gómez-Martínez, 2022. "Eudaimonic and Uncertainty Metaphors About Life are Associated with Meaningfulness, Experiential Avoidance, Mental Health and Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 4119-4146, December.
    10. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    11. Nicholas Apergis & Sayantan Ghosh Dastidar & Ghulam Mustafa, 2021. "Fracking and Asset Prices: The Role of Health Indicators for House Prices Across Oklahoma’s Counties," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 583-602, April.
    12. Rickman, Dan & Wang, Hongbo, 2020. "What goes up must come down? The recent economic cycles of the four most oil and gas dominated states in the US," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Calderón, Andrés J. & Guerra, Omar J. & Papageorgiou, Lazaros G. & Reklaitis, Gintaras V., 2018. "Disclosing water-energy-economics nexus in shale gas development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 710-731.
    14. Li, Boying & Zheng, Mingbo & Zhao, Xinxin & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2021. "An assessment of the effect of partisan ideology on shale gas production and the implications for environmental regulations," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    15. Ison, Ray & Blackmore, Chris & Iaquinto, Benjamin L., 2013. "Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 34-42.
    16. Rakitan, Timothy John, 2017. "Essays in the economics of energy development and disamenities," ISU General Staff Papers 201701010800007207, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Matthew Cotton, 2015. "Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1944-1962, September.
    18. Rickman, Dan S. & Wang, Hongbo, 2018. "What Goes Up Must Come Down? A Case Study of the Recent Oil and Gas Employment Cycle in Louisiana, North Dakota and Oklahoma," MPRA Paper 87252, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ray Ison & Catherine Allan & Kevin Collins, 2015. "Reframing water governance praxis: Does reflection on metaphors have a role?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1697-1713, December.
    20. Howell, Emily L. & Li, Nan & Akin, Heather & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Xenos, Michael A. & Brossard, Dominique, 2017. "How do U.S. state residents form opinions about ‘fracking’ in social contexts? A multilevel analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 345-355.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:166:y:2019:i:c:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.