A town divided: Community values and attitudes towards coal seam gas development in Gloucester, Australia

Grubert, Emily; Skinner, W.H.

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.041

Cited by 30 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the response rate in this study was in line with similar mail-based surveys of a contentious topic such as ours [82,83], it was still lower than what may be desired in order to ensure a representative sample. That said, any such survey, particularly an academic survey, requires that the respondents be highly motivated to participate in the study, which can lead to a biased sample that is not fully representative of the general public [84].…”

Section: Limitations and Future Worksupporting

confidence: 54%

Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity

Tracy

Javernick‐Will

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central United States has seen an increase in earthquakes in recent years, spurring academics to research this new hazard and communicate their findings to the public-that the earthquakes are human-induced and tied to activities associated with oil and gas development. However, individuals receive information from a variety of sources and accept or reject information based on how credible they view the information source. Within this study, we administered and analyzed a household survey to understand what sources individuals view as credible regarding induced seismicity and oil and gas development, and what factors predict this perceived source credibility. We found that academics were viewed as the most credible source, and elected officials were viewed as the least credible source. Rural respondents viewed sources, including academics, as less credible than their urban counterparts. Those who experienced more negative impacts of induced seismicity viewed all sources as less credible than did individuals who have not experienced such adverse impacts. These findings are important to consider when developing outreach and communication campaigns around sustainability issues, as the public will view certain sources, particularly academics, as more credible than the sources that traditionally create and enact policy, such as elected officials and government agencies.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Worksupporting

confidence: 54%

Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity

Tracy

Javernick‐Will

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These reports of threats, verbal abuse, and painful divides between community members and families mirror studies of community attitudes and perceptions of unconventional natural gas extraction in Australia and the US, where researchers observe extreme levels of community division and threats of violence arising from disagreements over the environmental risks and economic opportunities of gas development (Morrone et al 2015;Grubert and Skinner 2017). This collection of statements also foregrounds how the impacts of shale gas development can cascade far beyond the site in question to impact an entire community, deepening the divide between "pro" and "anti" stances.…”

Section: Negative Lived Experiences Of Horrendous Participation Commmentioning

confidence: 78%

Humanizing hydrocarbon frontiers: the “lived experience” of shale gas fracking in the United Kingdom’s Fylde communities

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we explore the lived experiences of communities at the frontier of shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom. We ask: How do local people experience shale gas development? What narratives and reasoning do individuals use to explain their support, opposition or ambivalence to unconventional hydrocarbon developments? How do they understand their lived experiences changing over time, and what sorts of coping strategies do they rely upon? To do so, we draw insights from semi-structured interviews with 31 individuals in Lancashire, England, living or working near the only active shale gas extraction operation in the UK until the government moratorium was announced in December of 2019. Through these data, we identify several themes of negative experiences, including "horrendous" participation, community "abuse," disillusionment and "disgust," and earthquakes with the potential to "ruin" lives. We also identify themes of positive experiences emphasizing togetherness and community "gelling", environmental "awareness," everyday energy security with gas as a "bridging fuel," and local employment with "high quality jobs." Finally, we identify themes of ambivalent and temporally dynamic experiences with shale gas that move from neutral to negative regarding vehicle traffic, and neutral to positive regarding disgust with protesting behaviour and the diversion of community resources. Our study offers context to high level policy concerns and also humanizes community and resident experiences close to fracking sites.

show abstract

“…These findings are not suitable for transferring to local dynamics of land use change issues, as such a context would involve greater personal interest and involvement. Nevertheless, exploration of the role of conflict on attitudes toward land use change at the local scale is an area that would complement the present study and would ideally be explored through qualitative and locally contextualised research (e.g., Grubert and Skinner ; McCrea et al ). We also note the significance of national social–political context in shaping attitudes toward environmental issues (Hornsey et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of conflict framing and social identity in public opinion about land use change: An experimental test in the Australian context

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision makers use public opinion as an indicator of social acceptance for land use changes. However, public opinion is informed by, inter alia, the media, which tends to “frame” issues of public interest in terms of social conflict rather than the substantive details of the issue. Previous research about the influence of conflict on public opinion about politics has yielded contradictory results about the effect of this “conflict framing.” Some studies have shown that conflict framing polarises public opinion, whereas others have found that it moderates public opinion. Similarly, there is no clear understanding of how conflict framing may affect public opinion about the social acceptance of land use changes. This study presents an experimental survey with a quota sample of the Australian population (n = 1,147) where fictional land use change headlines were manipulated to represent three levels of conflict framing (no conflict; conflict; and conflict between identified parties). The results showed that heightened conflict framing led to the strength of support or opposition for land use changes to become weaker. Importantly, these findings show that perceived social conflict can shape public opinion on land use change. As a consequence, public opinion may not represent genuine social acceptance of land use change in cases where conflict is pronounced in the media. This raises the need for attentiveness to disentangling the influence of conflict framing from the substantive issues of land use change.

show abstract

A town divided: Community values and attitudes towards coal seam gas development in Gloucester, Australia

Cited by 30 publications

References 40 publications

Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity

Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity

Humanizing hydrocarbon frontiers: the “lived experience” of shale gas fracking in the United Kingdom’s Fylde communities

The role of conflict framing and social identity in public opinion about land use change: An experimental test in the Australian context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About