Perceptions of Health Risks Associated with 'Fracking' in the US and UK

Symposium Title: PERCEPTION AND GOVERNANCE OF FRACKING RISKS: US AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES Abstract: Research on public perceptions of risks of shale oil and gas development (or ‘fracking’) has focused primarily on... [ view full abstract ]

Symposium Title: PERCEPTION AND GOVERNANCE OF FRACKING RISKS: US AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES

Abstract: Research on public perceptions of risks of shale oil and gas development (or ‘fracking’) has focused primarily on perceived risks to the environment (e.g., climate change, water depletion and contamination, seismic activity). Although some survey research has included health in addition to environmental risk items, few studies have systematically explored health concerns using qualitative methods (except, see Ferrar et al., 2013 and Perry 2013). For example, surveys have identified stress as one form of health hazard from fracking, and concerns about adverse effects on both human and pet and livestock health have been reported (Thomas et al. 2015), but deeper understanding of cultural constructs of health and bodily harm associated with fracking in the upstream is not yet well developed. Such information is vital for developing effective risk communication and risk governance.

In this paper we present an analysis of health concerns of participants in US and UK small deliberative workshops on shale oil and gas development convened using a standardized protocol in upstream locations of both countries in late 2014. The study uses qualitative research methods such as content analysis via NVivo software to examine emergent themes as well as compare the relative attention given to health-related discussions in the different locations, by different individuals. We examine across the 4 workshops: implicit and explicit concepts of health, illness and safety; when, where and how fracking is seen to impact health or safety; perceived relationships between environmental health and bodily health, for humans and for animals (e.g., intuitive toxicology; exposure pathways). We argue that ideas people express about health risk, safety, and harm reduction reflect perceived bodily vulnerability or resilience, perceived relationships between bodily and environmental vulnerability or resilience, current and past experiences of bodily harm or protection, environment justice and privilege, attitudes about technological development, and risk governance.