The social construction of unconventional gas extraction: Towards a greater understanding of Socio-economic impact of unconventional gas development

The increased demand for natural gas and concerns about national energy security have sparked a renewed interest in unconventional forms of energy development. Hydraulic fracturing is one popular form of unconventional gas development that is being pursued within the UK. As former Prime Minister David Cameron suggests, 'We're going all out for shale. It is important for our country, it could bring 74,000 jobs, over £3billion in investment, give us cheaper energy for the future, and increase our energy security. I want us to get on board.' While hydraulic fracturing may produce national social and economic benefits by reducing the price of energy and increasing national security it may also create negative outcomes in those communities where extraction takes place. It is within this context that the proposed research examines the social, economic and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. This research hypothesises that hydraulic fracturing can have two different kinds of impacts on a community. The first type of impact may arise from the technical process of hydraulic fracturing. The second type of impact may result from social interpretations of natural gas extraction. The proposed research seeks to distinguish between these two different types of impacts by undertaking the first UK study that makes systematic comparisons between hydraulic fracturing communities and conventional gas extraction communities. It is within these vital comparisons that the proposed study asks four important questions.

First, how do residents and other local stakeholders (e.g., business owners, natural gas employees, law enforcement, protesters and community leaders) describe their experiences with gas extraction and do their experiences vary according to their race, ethnicity, gender and age and/or the type of natural gas development (i.e., conventional vs. unconventional)? Second, how do race, ethnicity, gender and age shape resident and other local stakeholder mobilisation and anti-mobilisation efforts? Third, what social, economic and environmental changes are reported to occur as a direct result of natural gas development? Importantly, how do these changes vary according to the type of development (i.e., conventional vs. unconventional)? Fourth, can life cycle assessment be a useful tool for informing national and local debates about hydraulic fracturing? Importantly, is there significant variation between conventional and unconventional gas developments when it comes to life cycle assessment?

We answer these questions by achieving four objectives. Specifically, we (1) create a comprehensive literature review of the social and economic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on communities; (2) produce an ethnographic analysis of residents and other local stakeholders in hydraulic fracturing and conventional extraction communities; (3) generate a quantitative assessment of residents' perspectives about the social and economic impacts of living near hydraulic fracturing and conventional extraction sites, and; (4) undertake and report the findings of a life cycle assessment that compares hydraulic fracturing to conventional extraction. Completion of these objectives will provide relevant information to communities, statutory organisations, and policy-makers in order to stimulate a more informed and thoughtful public conversation about the benefits and burdens of hydraulic fracturing.

Impact Summary

The applicants have a proven track record of working in communities and engaging in knowledge exchange with voluntary sector organisations, industry and business, government organisations, community residents and d general public. They identify three particular stakeholder groups that the project will impact: community residents living near hydraulic fracturing sites; policy makers; the general public.

Co-production of knowledge

Our impact activities are geared toward co-delivery of key knowledge to stakeholder groups. We have already worked with many of these groups and letters of support for the proposed research project are available from community organisations such as the Roseacre Awareness Group (Contact: James Nisbet); the Preston New Road Action Group (Contact: Susan Holliday) and The Residents Action on Fylde Fracking (Contact: Anne Fielding). These organisations and many others have supported our study and will participate in the dissemination of study results in local communities and beyond where we can discuss the relevancy, validity and applicability of our findings.

Community residents and stakeholders

The applicants will reach out to the stakeholders identified in the 'Case for Support'. The applicants will share initial survey facts and photographs and serve as a point of information dissemination in the four communities where the research takes place (i.e., Preston New Road, Kirby Misperton and control communities). Exhibitions will impact community residents by providing them with summaries of their views about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing that can be used to lobby for representation decision-making with companies, investors, and governments from a position of greater knowledge and power. The applicants will provide avenues for feedback by collecting evaluations of the exhibitions. Community residents and other local stakeholders will also have open access to the series of reports of findings described in the case for support as well as the materials presented in the exhibitions. These reports will also be posted on the project websites where their use will be monitored.

Policy Makers

The applicants seek to impact policy-makers by creating a series of tool kits for policy makers that reports on the social, economic and environmental impacts of fracking. To build these toolkits we will produce an executive summary to be distributed directly to relevant local and policy-makers to influence the hydraulic fracturing landscape. Executive summaries will provide accessible information for presentation and discussions. These toolkits will provide information that will aid decision-makers in understanding the debate that go beyond the current focus in politics and the media. This is especially important for local residents and other community stakeholders who believe they are not represented by the government (see Cotton 2015). Such information provisions have been known to facilitate improvements in local governance outcomes (Sexton, Olden & Johnson 1993). The impact of these events will be assessed through the use short feedback forms and electronic surveys.

The General Public

Long term aspirations seek to impact the general public. We do this by adopting a 'public sociology' stance (Burawoy 2005). There are two parts to this approach. First, we will give a series of community lectures that would be open to the public free of charge. While lectures will focus on the research outcomes they will also aim to engage, when possible, the research of colleagues in Challenges 1 to 4. We will assess these lectures using feedback forms and track them on social media. Second, we will provide summaries of findings to various media outlets. in the form of a few short paragraphs (Gans 2016:4). To determine the impact of these events we will analyse social media comments every few months.