Communities Experiencing Shale Gas Development

Brasier, Kathryn J.; Davis, Lisa; Glenna, Leland; Kelsey, Timothy W.; McLaughlin, Diane K.; Schafft, Kai A.; Babbie, Kristin; Biddle, Catharine; DeLessio-Parson, Anne; Rhubart, Danielle; Suchyta, Mark

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11499-6_7

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On one hand, they found that “some residents viewed changes in the community related to Marcellus Shale as an economic opportunity” while on the other, residents “emphasized the economic uncertainty of Marcellus Shale development in their communities (Brasier et al . , 32).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Natural Gas Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing on prior research of public perceptions of natural gas, there does not appear to be an overall consensus as to whether the benefits of this energy source outweigh the costs. In a leading study conducted by Brasier and others () that used focus groups to measure residents’ perceptions of the impact of natural gas extraction at the regional and local levels, the researchers found that individuals had mixed feelings about the process. On one hand, they found that “some residents viewed changes in the community related to Marcellus Shale as an economic opportunity” while on the other, residents “emphasized the economic uncertainty of Marcellus Shale development in their communities (Brasier et al .…”

Section: Perceptions Of Natural Gas Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Risk and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

Brogan

2017

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research conducts an experiment on individuals perceptions of natural gas pipeline incidents and the expansion of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in the United States. This work contributes to the literature on natural gas pipeline safety and risk by utilizing Kahneman and Tverskys Prospect Theory. This work is relevant from a public policy perspective because of the recent expansion of the U.S. natural gas pipeline network that has been underway since 2010. It provides policy makers with a better understanding of how the public perceives risks and benefits associated with pipeline expansion. Overall, the study results find that when individuals balanced the benefits and risks of pipeline expansion, a majority of all respondents (53.4 percent) picked safety over monetary gains. Further, a majority of respondents who received at least one treatment were more likely to choose safety and two-thirds of respondents who received a second treatment chose safety over material benefits associated with pipeline expansion.

show abstract

Section: Perceptions Of Natural Gas Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perceptions Of Natural Gas Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Risk and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

Brogan

2017

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hydraulic fracturing that accompanies shale gas development is stressful because it is perceived to threaten physical health [ 4 , 19 , 20 ]. Brasier et al [ 2 ] (p. 38) learned that health experts in Pennsylvania were concerned about hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development, saying “we’ve done a number of assessments…there are some community perceptions that there are some health issues.” Fisher et al [ 19 ] also uncovered that residents in two Ohio (USA) counties that lived within 5 miles of hydraulic fracturing well faced considerable levels of stress due to their health concerns about those wells. The researchers found that physical health was a core category of concern and many residents were anxious about air pollution and water contamination.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shale gas development is expanding globally and often relies on unconventional hydraulic fracturing to access gas in the subsurface rocks by injecting water, sand and chemicals into the ground at high pressure. An emerging set of literature suggests that this type of development might have a negative impact on the mental health of residents living near extraction sites [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In particular, recent studies carried out the in the United States (US) suggest that residing near active hydraulic fracturing wells can lead to poor mental health outcomes [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shale Gas Development and Community Distress: Evidence from England

Aryee

Szołucha

Stretesky

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines psychosocial stress associated with shale gas development through the narratives of residents and the Revised Impact of Event Scale (IES-R). We carried out our research in three of England’s communities impacted by shale gas development. To gather data, we conducted qualitative interviews and engaged in participant observation in all three communities and conducted a quantitative survey of residents. From our qualitative interviews it was apparent that the residents we spoke with experienced significant levels of stress associated with shale gas development in each community. Importantly, residents reported that stress was not only a reaction to development, but a consequence of interacting with industry and decision makers. Our quantitative findings suggest that a significant portion of residents 14.1% living near the shale gas sites reported high levels of stress (i.e., scoring 24 or more points) even while the mean IES-R score of residents living around the site is relatively low (i.e., 9.6; 95% CI 7.5–11.7). We conclude that the experiences, of the three English communities, reported in the qualitative interviews and quantitative survey are consistent with the reports of stress in the United States for those residents who live in shale gas communities. We therefore suggest that psychosocial stress is an important negative externality, which needs to be taken seriously by local planning officers and local planning committees when considering exploration and development permits for shale gas.

show abstract

“…While empirical data for these effects is currently quite rare, there is some evidence that farmers with additional income may invest in additional equipment or agricultural services (Brasier et al, 2015), which can also have a negative effect on agricultural labour demand through rationalisation but would on the other hand be rewarded with productivity gains.…”

Section: Secondary Effects For Unconventional Energy Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual model of the socioeconomic impacts of unconventional fossil fuel extraction

Measham

Fleming

Schandl

2016

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As global energy demand increases, the rapid expansion of the unconventional fossil fuel sector has triggered an urgent need for social, economic and policy research to understand and predict how this sector affects host communities and how governance systems can respond to changes presented by this sector. In response to this need, this paper addresses three linked objectives. The first is to review the literature on regional impacts of energy extraction, presented in the form of a framework of hierarchical effects. The second is to consider how these are playing out differently in the context of conventional compared with unconventional fossil fuels. The third is to draw attention to the institutional avenues for addressing these impacts, including an overview of the lessons from existing research on the human and policy dimensions associated with conventional energy industries. In particular, we consider the importance of multistakeholder dialogue, which plays an important role in how regions respond to the challenges brought about through extractive industries. Overall, we demonstrate that experiences from conventional energy development provide a useful starting point for navigating the human and policy dimensions of unconventional energy for host communities and discuss how these experiences differ when unconventional energy seeks to co-exist with other land uses such as agriculture. The paper draws attention to the dispersed nature of impacts (positive and negative) and how this may shape winners and losers from unconventional energy development, particularly in regions with pre-existing land uses such as agriculture.

show abstract

Communities Experiencing Shale Gas Development

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Evaluating Risk and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

Evaluating Risk and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety

Shale Gas Development and Community Distress: Evidence from England

A conceptual model of the socioeconomic impacts of unconventional fossil fuel extraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About