COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: OIL AND GAS SITING, HOUSING CHOICES, AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

所有人都应得到平等保护，免受环境风险，并有平等机会参与影响当地环境和健康结果的决策过程。该项目评估了这些原则在科罗拉多州石油和天然气开发中得到满足的程度。在科罗拉多州和其他许多州，非常规石油和天然气（O&amp；G）开发的繁荣为社区带来了利益和风险。水平钻井和水力压裂（又名“水力压裂”或“水力压裂”）提高了开采活动和基础设施的强度，并使它们比以往任何时候都更接近人们，从而改变了美国能源生产的地理格局。本项目评估油气开发的风险和收益分配是否公平，以及为什么（或为什么不公平）。2019年4月，公众对这些问题的关注导致科罗拉多州的政策变化，增加了当地对石油和天然气决策的参与。本研究项目探讨了这一政策创新的影响，并为其他考虑类似立法的州提供了经验教训。随着美国能源格局的变化和关于这个问题的辩论在全国范围内继续进行，保护国家的健康需要了解社区是如何受到影响的，以及谁可以参与围绕石油和天然气开发的决策。我们的团队致力于通过与其他研究人员、地方和州级决策者以及公众的合作关系，最大限度地扩大我们研究的学术和政策影响。该项目在概念上、方法上和经验上对o&g开发背景下的模式和过程的研究做出了贡献。概念框架展示了如何从涉及不同规模的许多参与者的决策和政策过程中产生接近于o&&g发展的模式。研究小组使用这个框架来解决以下问题：1)社会弱势群体是否更有可能更接近于o&&g发展？2)在社会优势群体和弱势群体之间，关于住房和政策参与的风险和收益信息是否存在差异？3)增加地方对能源开发的参与是否会改善流程和政策结果？为了回答第一个问题，该团队分析了大型地理空间数据集，以评估O&amp；G影响的分布，在多个数据集之间进行三角测量，并在不同的空间聚集水平上进行分析，以评估这些方法选择如何影响结果。第二个问题是通过有目的地选择的科罗拉多州案例研究地点的家庭调查来解决的。该项目通过对当地决策者调查、政策文件和访谈的混合方法分析来调查第三个问题，这些访谈特别关注2019年4月SB-181法案通过后政策和规则制定的变化，该法案增加了当地对油气活动的参与。这种政策转变创造了一个自然的实验，可以检验对利益相关者参与和结果的影响。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

All people deserve equal protection from environmental risks and equal opportunities to participate in decision making processes that affect local environmental and health outcomes. This project assesses the extent to which these principles are being met in the context of oil and gas development in Colorado. The boom in unconventional oil and gas (O&G) development in Colorado, and many other states, has yielded both benefits and risks for communities. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking” or “fracing”) has changed the geography of US energy production by increasing the intensity of extractive activities and infrastructure and bringing them closer to more people than ever before. This project assesses whether or not the distribution of risks and benefits from O&G development has been equitable, and why (or why not). In April 2019, public concern over these issues led to policy changes in Colorado that increased local involvement with O&G decisions. This research project examines the implications of this policy innovation and draws lessons for other states considering similar legislation. As the U.S. energy landscape changes and debates on this issue continue across the country, protecting the nation’s health requires understanding how communities are affected and who gets to take part in the decisions surrounding O&G development. Our team is committed to maximizing the broader academic and policy impacts of our research through collaborative relationships with other researchers, local and state-level decision makers, and members of the public.This project makes conceptual, methodological, and empirical contributions to the study of patterns and processes in the context of O&G development. The conceptual framework demonstrates how patterns of proximity to O&G development result from decision and policy processes involving many actors at varying scales. The research team uses this framework to address the following questions: 1) Are socially disadvantaged groups more likely to be closer to O&G development? 2) Are there disparities in information about O&G risks and benefits between socially advantaged and disadvantaged groups that could affect choices about housing and policy participation? 3) Does increased local involvement in energy development lead to improved processes and policy outcomes? To answer the first question, the team analyzes large geospatial data sets to assess the distribution of O&G impacts, triangulating between multiple data sets and analyses at different levels of spatial aggregation to assess how these methodological choices affect results. The second question is addressed using a household survey in purposefully selected Colorado case study sites. The project investigates the third question with a mixed-methods analysis of local decision maker surveys, policy documents,and interviews focusing specifically on policy and rule-making changes following the April 2019 passage of SB-181, which increased local involvement in O&G activities. This policy shift creates a natural experiment to examine effects on stakeholder engagement and outcomes.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.