Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

Abstract

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.

‘If they only knew what I know’: Attitude change from education about ‘fracking’

“…To the extent that government and industry think that more familiarity with the 'facts' on UGD can change support/opposition (Williams et al 2015); these findings question that assumption. Indeed, no communication intervention to the general public (or a segment thereof) would ever approach the amount of information gained by my students in this course.…”

“…The foregoing research reveals the complex and nuanced ways in which perspectives on this issue are negotiated and emerge -supported by substantial research on public perceptions of UGD (e.g., Anderson and Theodori 2009;Boudet et al 2014;Braiser et al 2013;Clarke et al 2015;Evensen et al 2014b;Evensen 2015a;Evensen and Stedman 2016;Israel et al 2015;Malin 2014;Morrone et al 2015;Perry 2012b;Sangaramoorthy et al 2016;Schafft and Biddle 2015;Stedman et al 2012;Stedman et al 2016;Willow 2014; see Thomas et al 2017 for a review). These findings often contrast with institutional framings of UGD, which can paint public perceptions as misinformed and/or uninformed (Williams et al 2015).…”

“…An emerging literature has begun to explore how unconventional gas development via hydraulic fracturing (UGD) 1 has been framed in news media (Ashmoore et al 2016;Evensen et al 2014a;Mazur 2016;Olive 2016;Vasi et al 2015), social media (Hopke and Simis 2015;Jaspal, Turner, and Nerlich 2014) and public discourse (Bomberg 2015;Cotton et al 2014;Cotton, 2015;Hilson 2015;Kroepsch 2016;Molinatti and Simonneau 2015;Williams et al 2015). The foregoing research reveals the complex and nuanced ways in which perspectives on this issue are negotiated and emerge -supported by substantial research on public perceptions of UGD (e.g., Anderson and Theodori 2009;Boudet et al 2014;Braiser et al 2013;Clarke et al 2015;Evensen et al 2014b;Evensen 2015a;Evensen and Stedman 2016;Israel et al 2015;Malin 2014;Morrone et al 2015;Perry 2012b;Sangaramoorthy et al 2016;Schafft and Biddle 2015;Stedman et al 2012;Stedman et al 2016;Willow 2014; see Thomas et al 2017 for a review).…”

“…Heberlein (2012) provides an insightful review of research illustrating why the 'cognitive fix' (education) rarely changes attitudes. In relation to UGD, Williams et al (2015, p. 1) rely on a series of deliberative focus groups across northern England to demonstrate that public concerns about UGD 'cannot be satisfactorily explained by a lack of understanding on the part of participants'; recent research in the US supports the contention that a lack of understanding is insufficient explanation for opposition (e.g., Fernando and Cooley 2016;Kroepsch 2016;Sangaramoorthy et al 2016); yet, some emergent survey research in the UK suggests that additional information can shape attitudes on UGD (Whitmarsh et al 2015).…”

Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning

“…Government concluded form this evidence that shale gas could be managed safely in the UK if best practice regulatory safeguards were strictly adhered to. Critics have since argued that this technical approach to managing fracking risk is favoured by policy makers, though lacks broader public and stakeholder support (Williams et al 2015). Given the lack of epidemiological evidence over long term health risks, it behoves Governments to avoid Ôfalse negativesÕ Ð essentially to take a precautionary approach in response to a lack of evidence, as protecting the public from serious harm from potential environmental risks from fracking takes precedence over enhancing its welfare through economic regeneration (de Melo-Mart'n, Hays, and Finkel 2014).…”