Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Marcellus Shale Gas Development and New Boomtown Research: Views of New York and Pennsylvania Residents

Abstract

Development of unconventional natural gas resources in theMarcellus Shale region of the northeastern United States has progressed rapidly over the last decade. The discourse surrounding such development recalls quarter-century-old debates about positive and negative implications for the well-being of such energy boomtowns. Potential support or opposition relates to trust in the industry and its regulators, perceived knowledge, and perceived impacts. Our research project takes advantage of the opportunity for a natural experiment in comparing these elements between two spatially adjacent sites with contrasting approaches to gas development: in Pennsylvania, drilling of unconventional natural gas reserves has been proceeding for nearly a decade, whereas, at the time of this writing, drilling has not begun in New York. A mail survey of a random sample of New York and Pennsylvania residents within the Marcellus region revealed important differences between sites. New York residents were more opposed to development, characterized the industry in a more negative light, and were more likely to have engaged in various forms of public participation. In contrast, respondents did not differ by state on their perceived level of knowledge, even though gas development is more advanced in Pennsylvania. Potential explanations for these findings are offered, as are implications for understanding newly emerging energy boomtowns.

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

“…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).…”

Comparing the relationship between knowledge and support for hydraulic fracturing between residents of the United States and the United Kingdom

“…This conversation, thus, points to whether development should or should not occur [4,25,52]. In the US, mass media discourse and community conversations often focus more frequently on nuances of how to deal with perceived positive and negative outcomes [45,46] of development than on whether to encourage or resist it. Because the evolution of shale gas development is still relatively early, the UK may have a great deal to learn from the US when considering whether and how to approach shale gas development, although several key differences need to be considered that reflect the different contexts in which developme nt is occurring and/or may occur.…”

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

“…Much of this development has occurred in the USA, where increasing domestic natural gas extraction has been a major component of policies aimed at increasing energy self-sufficiency (Stedman et al, 2012;Gunter et al, 1997). Unconventional natural gas is methane trapped in geological formations including shale, coal seams and tight rock formations (Law and Spencer, 1993;Wright, 2012).…”

“…Concentrating a predominantly male workforce, often on short-term contracts, can lead to high levels of social disruption and related unintended socio-economic outcomes such as alcoholism, drug abuse, prostitution and violence, often referred to as boomtown effects (Lawrie et al, 2011;Stedman et al, 2012). Frantál and Nováková (2014) examined coal extraction in the Czech Republic and found increased unemployment, homelessness, and crime rates in extraction regions.…”

“…Moreover, extraction has occurred in relatively densely populated localities which are based on wellestablished rural industries, notably agriculture and services supporting the agricultural sector, with the effect that there are more people with a claim to compensation for diverse impacts (Stedman et al, 2012). This goes hand in hand with a more powerful community base to lobby for political responses to representation to defend such claims .…”