The social construction of unconventional gas extraction: Towards a greater understanding of Socio-economic impact of unconventional gas development

对天然气需求的增加和对国家能源安全的担忧重新激发了人们对非传统形式能源开发的兴趣。水力压裂法是英国正在推行的一种流行的非常规天然气开发形式。正如英国前首相大卫（David卡梅隆）所说，我们将全力以赴开发页岩气。这对我们的国家很重要，它可以带来74，000个工作岗位，超过30亿英镑的投资，为我们未来提供更便宜的能源，并提高我们的能源安全。我希望我们都能加入“虽然水力压裂法可以通过降低能源价格和增加国家安全来产生国家社会和经济效益，但它也可能在开采发生的社区产生负面结果。正是在这种背景下，拟议的研究审查了水力压裂的社会，经济和环境影响。这项研究假设水力压裂可以对社区产生两种不同的影响。第一种类型的影响可能来自水力压裂的技术过程。第二类影响可能来自对天然气开采的社会解释。拟议的研究旨在通过开展英国第一项研究来区分这两种不同类型的影响，该研究对水力压裂社区和传统天然气开采社区进行了系统的比较。正是在这些重要的比较中，拟议的研究提出了四个重要的问题。首先，居民和其他当地利益相关者（例如，企业主、天然气雇员、执法人员、抗议者和社区领导人）描述了他们的天然气开采经验，并且他们的经验是否根据他们的种族、民族、性别和年龄和/或天然气开发的类型而变化（即，传统与非传统（conventional vs. unconventional）其次，种族、民族、性别和年龄如何影响居民和其他当地利益相关者的动员和反动员工作？第三，据报告，天然气开发的直接结果是发生了哪些社会、经济和环境变化？重要的是，这些变化如何根据发展类型而变化（即，传统与非传统（conventional vs. unconventional）第四，生命周期评估是否可以成为一个有用的工具，为国家和地方关于水力压裂的辩论提供信息？重要的是，在生命周期评估方面，常规和非常规天然气开发之间是否存在显著差异？我们通过实现四个目标来回答这些问题。具体来说，我们（1）创建一个全面的文献综述的社会和经济影响的水力压裂对社区;（2）生产的居民和其他当地利益相关者在水力压裂和常规提取社区的人种学分析;（3）对居民对居住在水力压裂和常规开采地点附近的社会和经济影响的看法进行定量评估，和;（4）进行并报告生命周期评估的结果，该评估将水力压裂与传统开采进行比较。这些目标的完成将为社区、法定组织和政策制定者提供相关信息，以激发公众对水力压裂的好处和负担进行更知情和更深入的讨论。

The increased demand for natural gas and concerns about national energy security have sparked a renewed interest in unconventional forms of energy development. Hydraulic fracturing is one popular form of unconventional gas development that is being pursued within the UK. As former Prime Minister David Cameron suggests, 'We're going all out for shale. It is important for our country, it could bring 74,000 jobs, over £3billion in investment, give us cheaper energy for the future, and increase our energy security. I want us to get on board.' While hydraulic fracturing may produce national social and economic benefits by reducing the price of energy and increasing national security it may also create negative outcomes in those communities where extraction takes place. It is within this context that the proposed research examines the social, economic and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. This research hypothesises that hydraulic fracturing can have two different kinds of impacts on a community. The first type of impact may arise from the technical process of hydraulic fracturing. The second type of impact may result from social interpretations of natural gas extraction. The proposed research seeks to distinguish between these two different types of impacts by undertaking the first UK study that makes systematic comparisons between hydraulic fracturing communities and conventional gas extraction communities. It is within these vital comparisons that the proposed study asks four important questions.First, how do residents and other local stakeholders (e.g., business owners, natural gas employees, law enforcement, protesters and community leaders) describe their experiences with gas extraction and do their experiences vary according to their race, ethnicity, gender and age and/or the type of natural gas development (i.e., conventional vs. unconventional)? Second, how do race, ethnicity, gender and age shape resident and other local stakeholder mobilisation and anti-mobilisation efforts? Third, what social, economic and environmental changes are reported to occur as a direct result of natural gas development? Importantly, how do these changes vary according to the type of development (i.e., conventional vs. unconventional)? Fourth, can life cycle assessment be a useful tool for informing national and local debates about hydraulic fracturing? Importantly, is there significant variation between conventional and unconventional gas developments when it comes to life cycle assessment?We answer these questions by achieving four objectives. Specifically, we (1) create a comprehensive literature review of the social and economic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on communities; (2) produce an ethnographic analysis of residents and other local stakeholders in hydraulic fracturing and conventional extraction communities; (3) generate a quantitative assessment of residents' perspectives about the social and economic impacts of living near hydraulic fracturing and conventional extraction sites, and; (4) undertake and report the findings of a life cycle assessment that compares hydraulic fracturing to conventional extraction. Completion of these objectives will provide relevant information to communities, statutory organisations, and policy-makers in order to stimulate a more informed and thoughtful public conversation about the benefits and burdens of hydraulic fracturing.