Framing 'fracking': Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom (original) (raw)
Related papers
P U S Framing 'fracking': Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom
The prospect of fracking in the United Kingdom has been accompanied by significant public unease. We outline how the policy debate is being framed by UK institutional actors, finding evidence of a dominant discourse in which the policy approach is defined through a deficit model of public understanding of science and in which a technical approach to feasibility and safety is deemed as sufficient grounds for good policymaking. Deploying a deliberative focus group methodology with lay publics across different sites in the north of England, we find that these institutional framings are poorly aligned with participants' responses. We find that unease regularly overflows the focus on safety and feasibility and cannot be satisfactorily explained by a lack of understanding on the part of participants. We find that scholarship from science and technology studies productively elucidates our participants' largely sceptical positions, and orientates strategies for responding to them more effectively.
Fracking Yorkshire: A Governmentality Analysis of Fracking, its Benefits and Risks
High volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) is a relatively new technique of extracting gas and oil, so as an innovative technique there are questions about its risks and benefits. However, due to a particularly controversial history in the US, the more usual cost/benefit analysis of an innovation has turned into a discursive battle to define and frame these risks and benefits in the public sphere. This project is a discursive analysis of public perceptions of these risks and benefits in the Yorkshire area, as North Yorkshire became the focal point of this debate when HVHF was given the go-ahead in May 2016. It uses a governmentality framework that is useful in the analysis of divisive public debates and the analysis of risk rationalities. Semi-structured qualitative interviews of key stakeholders and members of the Ryedale public were conducted (n22). Findings include: formal risk analysis used by industry and government insufficiently placates peoples' fears of social and environmental impacts of HVHF; formal risk analysis downplays the significant uncertainties of HVHF with implications for climate change mitigation and local impacts; and that the government, industry and their supporters are losing the discursive battle to define HVHF, partially as a result of not addressing peoples' concerns.
Public perceptions of shale gas in the UK: framing effects and decision heuristics
Energy, Ecology & Environment, 2018
Using two equivalent descriptions of the shale gas development process, we asked individuals to indicate their levels of support as well as their perceptions of the risks and costs involved. In version 1, shale gas development was framed as 'fracking', whereas under version 2 it was framed as 'using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground'. We find that individuals' support for shale gas development is much lower when using the term 'fracking' as opposed to the synonymous descriptive term, and moreover, these differences were substantive. Our analysis suggests that these differences appear to be largely the result of different assessments of the risks associated with 'fracking' as opposed to 'using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground'. Our proposed explanation for these differences rests on the idea that shale gas development is a technical and complex process and many individuals will be bounded by the rationality of scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding this process. In turn, individuals may be relying on simple decision heuristics shaped by the way this issue is framed by the media and other interested parties which may constrain meaningful discourse on this topic with the public. Our findings also highlight some of the potential pitfalls when it comes to relying on survey research for assessing the public's views towards complex environmental issues.
Nature Energy
Shale gas and oil production in the US has increased rapidly in the last 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.
Fracking in the UK Press: Threat Dynamics in an Unfolding Debate.
""Shale gas is a novel source of fossil fuel which is extracted by induced hydraulic fracking, or “fracking.” This article examines the the socio-political dimension of fracking as manifested in the UK press at three key temporal points in the debate on the practice. Three newspaper corpora were analysed qualitatively using Thematic Analysis and Social Representations Theory. Three overarching themes are discussed: “April-May 2011: From Optimism to Scepticism”; “November 2011: (De-)Constructing and Re-Constructing Risk and Danger; “April 2012: Consolidating Social Representations of Fracking.” In this article, we examine the emergence and inter-relations between competing social representations, discuss the dynamics of threat positioning and show how threat can be re-construed in order to serve particular socio-political ends in the debate on fracking. Keywords fracking; media; climate change; environmental communication; social representations theory ""
Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate
Social Sciences, 2018
Fracking in the United Kingdom has yet to reach full industrial development, but it is still subject to significant opposition. This study uses Beck's risk society theory and anti-politics to examine the views voiced by opponents to fracking in Yorkshire, England. A qualitative approach was used. Semi-structured interviews with protesters and local newspaper reports were evaluated to provide a thematic analysis. The study drew upon discourse analysis and framing literature to reveal discourses within the interviews. Although there are signs of post-materialist concerns with the environment, these issues did not dominate the discussion. Scientists were not held responsible for the risks involved in fracking. Instead, the economic greediness of politicians and austerity measures were perceived as putting the environment and human health at risk. Interviewees thought fossil fuel energy production was economically advantaged over more sustainable energy and jobs in the low carbon economy. Protesters' trust in politicians had been eroded, but faith in democracy remained. It is argued that the consensual post-politics of risk society have not led to a reinvigoration of democratic debate. Instead anti-politics have taken place, due to the frustration of citizens. Protesters wanted a citizen-led deliberative approach to the concerns raised. Such a process would have to go beyond the consensual, and recognise the inherently agonistic process of democracy if it is to succeed.
The Extractive Industries and Society , 2017
Proposals to use the process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract natural gas in the United Kingdom has been met with both opposition and support as has often been the case for new extractive industries exploring new techniques or applications thereof. An idiosyncratic feature of the debate surrounding hydraulic fracturing is however the seeming lack of congruence of the concerns raised by experts and civic opposition. The authors consider the potential implications of this fragmentation of fears surrounding the process for its future regulation.
This paper investigates the controversial mining technique known as hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Fracking is debated and contested, with many proponents and opponents competing for their own conceptualization of the issue to become the dominant ideological perspective. Supporters argue that fracking will bring economic benefits, ensure fuel independence, and create economical wealth. Opponents contest these claims, on the basis of high risks of negative environmental impacts, including the dangers of water contamination, air pollution and implications for public health. Following various legislative initiatives by the government, intended to facilitate shale gas exploitation, mass protests have occurred within the UK since 2012. This paper attempts to investigate the various ways in which anti-fracking protests have been framed within the media. On the one hand, protesters have seen protests as the only legitimate form of action within the circumstances, due to other democratic processes being exhausted. On the other hand, the pro-fracking side have framed these protests as criminal action. This paper will employ an argumentative approach to framing which aims to demonstrate how the framing of an issue within the media supports particular arguments for action in view of specific desired outcomes. It draws on Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough 1992, Fairclough & Fairclough 2012) to show how the public debate over fracking has evolved and how it is being shaped by broader power relations in the current UK context. Three corpora of media data were collected and a quantitative and qualitative analysis was undertaken. The different ways in which the protests have been ‘framed’ enter into different arguments for action, in favour or against fracking. Protesters define their actions in terms of ‘civil disobedience’, ‘peaceful protests’, and ‘legal direct action’, which is said to be required due to a ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK. Fracking supporters define the protests as a form of ‘illegal’, ‘criminal’ action. Appeals to legality are also used by opponents to argue that fracking would contravene Britain’s binding legal commitments relating to climate change, as well as violating basic rights. The use of the legal frame to justify or criticize the actions of both sides is a thought-provoking argumentative strategy which this paper aims to explore further.
Variation in beliefs about ‘fracking’ between the UK and US
Environmental Research Letters
In decision-making on the politically-contentious issue of unconventional gas development, the UK Government and European Commission are attempting to learn from the US experience. Although economic, environmental, and health impacts and regulatory contexts have been compared cross-nationally, public perceptions and their antecedents have not. We conducted similar online panel surveys of national samples of UK and US residents simultaneously in September 2014 to compare public perceptions and beliefs affecting such perceptions. The US sample was more likely to associate positive impacts with development (i.e. production of clean energy, cheap energy, and advancing national energy security). The UK sample was more likely to associate negative impacts (i.e. water contamination, higher carbon emissions, and earthquakes). Multivariate analyses reveal divergence cross-nationally in the relationship between beliefs about impacts and support/ opposition-especially for beliefs about energy security. People who associated shale gas development with increased energy security in the UK were over three times more likely to support development than people in the US with this same belief. We conclude with implications for policy and communication, discussing communication approaches that could be successful cross-nationally and policy foci to which the UK might need to afford more attention in its continually evolving regulatory environment.