IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natene/v2y2017i5d10.1038_nenergy.2017.54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Merryn Thomas

    (Understanding Risk Group and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

  • Tristan Partridge

    (University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB))

  • Barbara Herr Harthorn

    (University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB))

  • Nick Pidgeon

    (Understanding Risk Group and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Merryn Thomas & Tristan Partridge & Barbara Herr Harthorn & Nick Pidgeon, 2017. "Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 1-7, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natene:v:2:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1038_nenergy.2017.54
    DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.54
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201754
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nenergy.2017.54?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hilary S. Boudet & Chad M. Zanocco & Peter D. Howe & Christopher E. Clarke, 2018. "The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1871-1890, September.
    2. Steve Westlake & Conor H. D. John & Emily Cox, 2023. "Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 149-158, February.
    3. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang, 2020. "Public attitude toward self-driving vehicles on public roads: Direct experience changed ambivalent people to be more positive," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Wang, Qiang & Zhan, Lina, 2019. "Assessing the sustainability of the shale gas industry by combining DPSIRM model and RAGA-PP techniques: An empirical analysis of Sichuan and Chongqing, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 353-364.
    6. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Frances Drake, 2018. "Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    9. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    10. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    11. Park, Seona & Yun, Sun-Jin & Cho, Kongjang, 2022. "Public dialogue as a collaborative planning process for offshore wind energy projects: Implications from a text analysis of a South Korean case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Chung, Ji-Bum, 2020. "Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in Korea – Small successes but bigger challenges," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    13. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    14. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Liu, Peng, 2020. "Positive, negative, ambivalent, or indifferent? Exploring the structure of public attitudes toward self-driving vehicles on public roads," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 27-38.
    16. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:natene:v:2:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1038_nenergy.2017.54. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.