Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice

Energy Research and Social Science

Volumn 26, Issue , 2017, Pages 11-22

  Whitton, John ^a   Brasier, Kathryn ^b   Charnley Parry, Ioan ^a   Cotton, Matthew ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Governance; Participation; Shale gas; Social justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010392530     PISSN: 22146296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.015     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. [1] Centner, T.J., Observations on risks, the social sciences, and unconventional hydrocarbons. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20 (2016), 1–7.
2. [2] IRGC, Risk Governance Guidelines for Unconventional Gas Development (Report)., 2013, International Risk Governance Council, Lausanne, Switzerland.
3. [3] Lozano-Maya, J.R., Looking through the prism of shale gas development: towards a holistic framework for analysis. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:October (2016), 63–72.
4. [4] Sovacool, B.K., Cooper, C.J., The Governance of Energy Megaprojects: Politics, Hubris and Energy Security. 2013, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, UK.
5. [5] Bickerstaff, K., Walker, G., Bulkeley, H., Energy Justice in a Changing Climate: Social Equity and Low-Carbon Energy. 2013, Zed Books, London, UK.
6. [6] Sovacool, B.K., Sidorstov, R.V., Jones, B.R., Energy Security, Equality, and Justice. 2014, Routledge, New York.
7. [7] Sovacool, B.K., Dworkin, M.H., Global Energy Justice: Principles, Problems and Practices. 2014, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
8. [8] Jenkins, K., et al. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016), 174–182.
9. [9] Foster, S., Garduño, H., Groundwater-resource governance: are governments and stakeholders responding to the challenge?. Hydrogeol. J. 21:2 (2012), 317–320.
10. [10] Cairney, P., Fischer, M., Ingold, K., Hydraulic fracturing policy in the UK: coalition, cooperation and opposition in the face of uncertainty. Political Studies Association Annual International Conference, Sheffield, UK, 2015.
11. [11] P.M.s. Office, Local Councils to Receive Millions in Business Rates from Shale Gas Developments., 2014 [Web Report] 09/09/15, Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/localcouncils-to-receive-millions-in-business-rates-from-shale-gas-developments.
12. [12] Hammond, G.P., O'Grady, Á., Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas extraction. Appl. Energy, 2016 Article in press.
13. [13] IEA, Golden rules for a golden age of gas: world energy outlook – special report on unconventional gas. World Energy Outlook 2012, 2012, International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
14. [14] Gunningham, N., Kagan, R.A., Thornton, D., Social licence and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc. Inq. 29 (2004), 307–341.
15. [15] Demuijnck, G., Fasterling, B., The social license to operate. J. Bus. Ethics 136:4 (2016), 675–685.
16. [16] Moffat, K., Zhang, A., The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour. Policy 39 (2014), 61–70.
17. [17] Whitmarsh, L., 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 (2015), 419–430.
18. [18] Whitton, J., et al. Conceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8 (2015), 127–138.
19. [19] Walker, G., Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode 41:4 (2009), 614–636.
20. [20] Cotton, M., Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning. Local Environ., 2016, 1–18.
21. [21] Harper, J.A., The Marcellus shale – an old new gas reservoir in Pennsylvania. Pa. Geol. 38:1 (2008), 2–12.
22. [22] NETL, Modern Shale Gas Development In the United States: An Update. 2013, National Energy Technology Laboratory: US Department of Energy.
23. [23] Trembath, A., et al. Where the shale gas revolution came from: government's role in the development of hydraulic fracturing in shale. Breakthrough Institute Energy and Climate Program, Breakthrough Institute, 2012.
24. [24] Malin, S., There's no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4:1 (2014), 17–27.
25. [25] Soeder, D.J., The Marcellus shale – resources and reservations. EOS 91:32 (2010), 277–288.
26. [26] U.S.E.I.A, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2014. 2014, US Energy Information Administration.
27. [27] MCOR, Tri State Shale Wells Map. Available from: http://marcellus.psu.edu/resources/maps.php, n.d.
28. [28] PDEP, Office of Oil and Gas Management: Spud Data Report, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, [online]. Available from: http://www.dep.pa.gov/DataandTools/Reports/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Reports/Pages/default.aspx, n.d.
29. [29] EIA, Marcellus Region Production Continues Growth. 2014 Available from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17411.
30. [30] EIA, U.S.D.o. Energy, (eds.) U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2014, 2015, Energy Information administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
31. [31] Brasier, K., Filteau, M.R., Community impacts of shale-based energy development: a summary of research in the Marcellus shale. Finkel, M.L., (eds.) The Human and Environmental Costs of Fracking: How Fracturing Shale for Gas Affects Us and Our World, 2015, Praeger Press, Westport, CT, 95–114.
32. [32] Boudet, H., et al. Fracking controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65 (2014), 57–67.
33. [33] Stedman, R.C., et al. Comparing the relationship between knowledge and support for hydraulic fracturing between residents of the United States and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2016 Article in press.
34. [34] Theodori, G.L., et al. Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus shale. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2 (2014), 66–74.
35. [35] Q. University, Q.U. Poll, (eds.) New York Voters Nix Pay Raise For Lawmakers 5-1, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Back Higher Taxes For Rich, 2012, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
36. [36] Kaplan, T., Citing Health Concerns, Cuomo Bans Fracking in New York State. 2014, The New York Times NYT: [Online].
37. [37] Hays, J., et al. Considerations for the development of shale gas in the United Kingdom. Sci. Total Environ. 512–513 (2015), 36–42.
38. [38] Cotton, M., Rattle, I., Van Alstine, J., Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 73 (2014), 427–438.
39. [39] Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., Fracking in the UK press: threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Underst. Sci. 23:3 (2014), 348–363.
40. [40] Cotton, M., Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environ. Plan. A 47:9 (2015), 1944–1962.
41. [41] H. Treasury, (eds.) Harnessing the Potential of the UK's Natural Resources: A Fiscal Regime for Shale Gas, 2013, HM Treasury, London, UK.
42. [42] Evensen, D., Stedman, R., Scale matters: variation in perceptions of shale gas development across national, state, and local levels. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2016 Article in press.
43. [43] Jacquet, J.B., Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 50 (2012), 677–688.
44. [44] Cotton, M., Shale gas-community relations: NIMBY or not? Integrating social factors into shale gas community engagements. Nat. Gas Electr. 29:9 (2013), 8–12.
45. [45] Whitton, J., et al. A review of the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot (2015) for new nuclear build in the UK: lessons for engagement theory and practice. J. Radiol. Prot. 36:2 (2016), S23–44.
46. [46] Richardson, N., et al. The State of State Shale Gas Regulation., 2013 Resources for the Future: [online] RFF Report. p. http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-StateofStateRegs_Report.pdf.
47. [47] Brasier, K., et al. Local champions speak out: Pennsylvania's community watershed organizations. Morton, L.W., Brown, S.S., (eds.) Pathways for Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect, 2011, Springer, New York, 133–144.
48. [48] Andrews, I.J., The Jurassic Shales of the Weald Basin: Geology and Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resource Estimation. 2014, British Geological Survey (for Department of Energy and Climate Change).
49. [49] BGS, Legislation and Policy: Mineral Ownership. 2016 (cited 2016 28/11/16).
50. [50] Cotton, M.D., Environmental justice challenges in United Kingdom infrastructure planning: lessons from a Welsh Incinerator Project. Environ. Justice 7:2 (2014), 39–44.
51. [51] Jones, P., Hillier, D., Comfort, D., Fracking in the UK: planning and property issues. Prop. Manag. 32:4 (2014), 352–361.
52. [52] Goldthau, A., Conceptualizing the above ground factors in shale gas: toward a research agenda on regulatory governance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:October (2016), 73–81.
53. [53] Rasch, E.D., Köhne, M., Hydraulic fracturing, energy transition and political engagement in the Netherlands: the energetics of citizenship. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 (2016), 106–115.
54. [54] Hanschel, D., Centner, T., Delineating property rights in unconventional hydrocarbon resources: concepts from the United States and Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20 (2016), 149–157.
55. [55] DECC, Underground Drilling Access. 2014, Department of Energy and Climate Change, London, UK (online).
56. [56] Government H, The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015 (Draft Statutory Instruments – Petroleum). 2015, The Stationary Office Ltd., London, UK, 1–4.
57. [57] DECC, Government Defines Protected Areas for Shale Developments. 2015, Department of Energy and Climate Change (online).
58. [58] LCC, Minutes of the Meeting Held on 23, 24, 25 and 29 June 2015 at 10:00 Amin Council Chamber, County Hall, Preston. 2015, Lancashire County Council, Development Control Committee, Lancashire, UK.
59. [59] LCC, Shale Gas Developments in Lancashire. 2016 Available from http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/planning/major-planning-applications/shale-gas-developments-in-lancashire.aspx.
60. [60] POSL, Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd and Cuadrilla Elswick Ltd Public Inquiry. 2016 Available from http://programmeofficers.co.uk/lancashire/.
61. [61] Johnstone, P., Planning reform, rescaling, and the construction of the postpolitical: the case of The Planning Act 2008 and nuclear power consultation in the UK. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 32:4 (2014), 697–713.
62. [62] Swyngedouw, E., Impossible ‘sustainability and the postpolitical condition. Kreuger, R., Gibbs, R., (eds.) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe, 2007, The Guildford Press, New York, 13–40.
63. [63] Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan. Theor. Pract. 5:4 (2004), 419–436.
64. [64] Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R., What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manag. 27:3 (2001), 435–450.
65. [65] Magis, K., Shinn, C., Emergent themes of social sustainability. Dillard, J., Dujon, V., King, M.C., (eds.) Understanding the Social Aspects of Sustainability, 2009, Routledge, New York, 15–44.
66. [66] Wilsdon, J., Willis, R., See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. 2004, Demos, London.
67. [67] Corner, A., Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream'engagement. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 3:5 (2012), 451–466.
68. [68] Hagendijk, R., Kallerud, E., Changing Practices of Governance in Science and Technology in Europe: A Framework for Analysis. Science Technology and Governance in Europe (STAGE) Discussion Paper. 2003, European Commission.
69. [69] Felt, U., Fochler, M., The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Sci. Public Policy 35:7 (2008), 489–499.
70. [70] Flynn, R., Bellaby, P., Ricci, M., The limits of upstream engagement in an emergent technology: lay perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies. Devine-Wright, P., (eds.) Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation, 2011, Routeledge, London, 245–259.
71. [71] Kleinman, D.L., (eds.) Science, Technology and Democracy, 2000, State University of New York Press, Albany.
72. [72] RCT, Eagle Ford Shale Task Force Report., 2013, Railroad Commission of Texas (Available from) http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/8051/eagle_ford_task_force_report-0313.pdf.
73. [73] Jalbert, K., Building knowledge infrastructures for empowerment: a study of grassroots water monitoring networks in the Marcellus shale. Sci. Technol. Stud. 29:2 (2016), 26–43.
74. [74] Kinchy, A., Jalbert, K., Lyons, J., What is volunteer water monitoring good for? Fracking and the plural logics of participatory science. Fields of Knowledge: Science, Politics and Publics in the Neoliberal Age, 2014, 259–289 (Online).
75. [75] Kinchy, A.J., Perry, S.L., Can volunteers pick up the slack? Efforts to remedy knowledge gaps about the watershed impacts of Marcellus shale gas development. Duke Environ. Law Policy Forum 22:2 (2012), 303–339.
76. [76] Consultation Principles. C. Office, (eds.), 2012, Crown Copyright, London.
77. [77] B.P. C, Fracking Poll Results. 2012, Balcombe Parish Council, Sussex, UK.
78. [78] Treasury, H.M., (eds.) Shale Wealth Fund: Consultation, 2016, Crown Copyright, London.
79. [79] Paydar, N.H., et al. Fee disbursements and the local acceptance of unconventional gas development: insights from Pennsylvania. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 2016 Article in press.
80. [80] Thibaut, J., Walker, L., Procedural Justice. 1975, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
81. [81] MacCoun, R.J., Voice, control, and belonging: the double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:1 (2005), 171–201.
82. [82] Gross, C., Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 35:5 (2007), 2727–2736.
83. [83] Cotton, M., Devine-Wright, P., NIMBYism and community consultation in electricity transmission network planning. Devine-Wright, P., (eds.) Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation, 2011, Earthscan, London, UK.
84. [84] Rootes, C., 8. Explaining the outcomes of campaigns against waste incinerators in England: community, ecology, political opportunities, and policy contexts. McCright, A.M., Clark, T.N., (eds.) Community and Ecology, 2006, Emerald Publishing, 179–198.
85. [85] Lebel, L., et al. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc., 11(1), 2006, 19.
86. [86] Fung, A., Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Adm. Rev. 75:4 (2015), 513–522.
87. [87] Kotsakis, A., The regulation of the technical, environmental and health aspects of current exploratory shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom: initial lessons for the future of European union energy policy. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 21:3 (2012), 282–290.
88. [88] Howard-Grenville, J., Nash, J., Coglianese, C., Constructing the license to operate: internal factors and their influence on corporate environmental decisions. Law Policy 30:1 (2008), 73–107.
89. [89] Calvano, L., Multinational corporations and local communities: a critical analysis of conflict. J. Bus. Ethics 82:4 (2007), 793–805.
90. [90] Hindmarsh, R., Matthews, C., Deliberative speak at the turbine face: community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions, in Australia. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 10:3 (2008), 217–232.
91. [91] UKOOG, Community Engagement Charter: Oil and Gas from Unconventional Reservoirs. 2016, UK Onshore Operations Group.
92. [92] Kojo, M., Richardson, P., The use of community benefits approaches in the siting of nuclear waste management facilities. Energy Strategy Rev. 4 (2014), 34–42.
93. [93] Shrader-Frechette, K.S., Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy. 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
94. [94] Ames, S., A Guide to Community Visioning. 1997, American Planning Association, Washington, D.C.
95. [95] Ames, S., Steiner, F.R., Butler, K., (eds.) Community Visioning, in Planning and Urban Design Standards, 2006, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 39–40.
96. [96] Cuthill, M., Community visioning: facilitating informed citizen participation in local area planning on the gold coast. Urban Policy Res. 22:4 (2004), 427–445.
97. [97] NCVO, Big Local: The Early Years [Evaluation Report]., 2014, National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London.
98. [98] Pidgeon, N., H.o.L.S.a.T. Committee, (eds.) Memorandum on Public Attitudes and Nuclear Power Submitted to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry on ‘Nuclear R&D Capabilities’, 2011 Available from: file://lha-003/pers-F/0007A1E0/Downloads/Memorandum%20on%20Public%20Attitudes%20and%20Nuclear%20Power%20.pdf, 28 June 2011.