Comparing the relationship between knowledge and support for hydraulic fracturing between the UK and US

[Submitted as part of symposium on: PERCEPTION AND GOVERNANCE OF FRACKING RISKS: US AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES] Our work examines differences in knowledge/familiarity with shale gas development across nations. Shale gas... [ view full abstract ]

[Submitted as part of symposium on: PERCEPTION AND GOVERNANCE OF FRACKING RISKS: US AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES]

Our work examines differences in knowledge/familiarity with shale gas development across nations. Shale gas development is a relatively mature industry in the United States (US); in contrast, no commercial extraction of shale gas has commenced in the United Kingdom (UK) – fewer than ten test wells have been drilled. That said, dialogue has been no less lively in the UK than in the US. Because shale gas development is at an incipient stage in Europe, the UK may have much to learn from the US when considering whether and how to approach shale gas development; yet, key differences exist between the nations, including: private vs. national ownership of mineral rights, centralised vs. decentralised approach to leasing, central vs. fragmented governance regimes, and the strength of the national political discourse on this topic. Institutional rhetoric from the central government within the UK follows the information deficit model: the current government believes that ‘educating’ the public about development will increase support. In the US, where more decentralised (regional, state level) governance exists, there is no clear central message. Our research examines how the relationship between information, knowledge, and support varies across national contexts. We rely on two parallel national surveys, one in the UK (N=3823) and one in the US (N=1625) to compare knowledge about and support for shale gas development. We examine factors associated with knowledge and support, and the relationship between these two variables. Increased knowledge is associated with higher support in the UK, but with higher opposition in the US. We consider the role of centralised discourse on shale gas development in the UK and programmatic efforts by the government to educate the public about shale gas development as one explanation for the manifest differences.