IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v35y2017i3p417-433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire

Author

Listed:
  • Yasminah Beebeejaun

Abstract

Contemporary shale gas extraction, also known as ‘fracking’, has become one of the most contentious environmental issues facing Europe and North America. Academic and policy debates have hitherto focused principally on questions related to scientific disputes, risk perception, potential health impacts, and the wider economic and geo-political dimensions to energy security. This paper draws on extensive qualitative research in Texas and Lancashire, undertaken between 2012 and 2015, to explore how differing regulatory frameworks are shaped through highly localized discourses that include communities opposed to fracking. Whilst there are significant differences between these two examples, including the extent of environmental monitoring, the local context remains a pivotal arena within which the regulatory and technical dimensions to fracking are being contested and scrutinized. The two cases illustrate how community opposition has catalysed important processes that have enhanced understanding of the environmental and social impacts of shale gas extraction.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:35:y:2017:i:3:p:417-433
    DOI: 10.1177/0263774X16664905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X16664905
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0263774X16664905?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Bickerstaff, 2012. "“Because We've Got History Here†: Nuclear Waste, Cooperative Siting, and the Relational Geography of a Complex Issue," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(11), pages 2611-2628, November.
    2. Hilaire, Jérôme & Bauer, Nico & Brecha, Robert J., 2015. "Boom or bust? Mapping out the known unknowns of global shale gas production potential," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 581-587.
    3. Barry G. Rabe & Christopher Borick, 2013. "Conventional Politics for Unconventional Drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania's Early Move into Fracking Policy Development," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(3), pages 321-340, May.
    4. Charles Davis, 2012. "The Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 177-191, March.
    5. Charles Davis & Katherine Hoffer, 2012. "Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(3), pages 221-241, September.
    6. Susan Owens, 2004. "Siting, sustainable development and social priorities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 101-114, March.
    7. Tim Boersma & Corey Johnson, 2012. "The Shale Gas Revolution: U.S. and EU Policy and Research Agendas," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(4), pages 570-576, July.
    8. Rahm, Dianne, 2011. "Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2974-2981, May.
    9. Fry, Matthew, 2013. "Urban gas drilling and distance ordinances in the Texas Barnett Shale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 79-89.
    10. 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. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    2. Holahan, Robert & Arnold, Gwen, 2013. "An institutional theory of hydraulic fracturing policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 127-134.
    3. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    4. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    5. Johnson, Corey & Boersma, Tim, 2013. "Energy (in)security in Poland the case of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 389-399.
    6. Steven Nelson & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2021. "End of the (Pipe)Line? Understanding how States Manage the Risks of Oil and Gas Wells," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 203-221, March.
    7. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    8. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    9. 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).
    10. Deserai A Crow & Elizabeth A Albright & Elizabeth Koebele, 2016. "Environmental rulemaking across states: Process, procedural access, and regulatory influence," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1222-1240, November.
    11. Hannibal, Bryce & Portney, Kent, 2020. "The impact of water scarcity on support for hydraulic fracturing regulation: A water-energy nexus study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. Saussay, Aurélien, 2018. "Can the US shale revolution be duplicated in continental Europe? An economic analysis of European shale gas resources," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 295-306.
    13. Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    14. Bugden, Dylan & Kay, David & Glynn, Russell & Stedman, Richard, 2016. "The bundle below: Understanding unconventional oil and gas development through analysis of lease agreements," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-219.
    15. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3vsrea3gla9r5oaa2cle5jrqfh is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Joshua C. Hall & Christopher Shultz & E. Frank Stephenson, 2018. "The political economy of local fracking bans," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 42(2), pages 397-408, April.
    17. Aba, Michael M. & Parente, Virginia & dos Santos, Edmilson Moutinho, 2022. "Estimation of water demand of the three major Brazilian shale-gas basins: Implications for water availability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Curran, Giorel, 2017. "Social licence, corporate social responsibility and coal seam gas: framing the new political dynamics of contestation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 427-435.
    20. Grecu, Eugenia & Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela & Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu, 2018. "The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 691-700.
    21. Atkinson, Giles & Hamilton, Kirk, 2020. "Sustaining wealth: Simulating a sovereign wealth fund for the UK's oil and gas resources, past and future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    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:sae:envirc:v:35:y:2017:i:3:p:417-433. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.