Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Energy Development

Critical Review pubs.acs.org/est

Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Energy Development Jeffrey B. Jacquet* Department of Sociology and Rural Studies, South Dakota State University, 214 Scobey Hall, Box 504, Brookings, South Dakota, 57007, United States ABSTRACT: Although shale energy development can bring infusions of money and jobs to local communities, an array of risks to communitylevel assets and institutions is also possible. Sociological research dating back to the 1970s links rapid oil and gas development with overburdened municipal services, upended social and cultural patterns, and volatile economic growth. Research on technological risk has demonstrated communities can come to be associated with pollution and contamination, resulting in out-migration, declining amenity-led development, and decreased financial investment. Emerging shale energy case studies in Wyoming, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas show a similar, although nuanced, picture of these concerns. Yet, little data exists on the prevalence or magnitude of these risks in the current context of shale gas development. The existing research has largely remained case-based in nature, has not been synthesized across various disciplines, and has not been updated to account for various social and technological trends that have occurred since its publication. This paper offers a critical review of major research endeavors that inform our knowledge of risk to communities from shale energy development, while identifying gaps in our understanding of these risks and areas of research need.

■

INTRODUCTION Shale energy development and its use of high-volume hydrofracturing techniques are emerging across wide swaths of the United States, encompassing both metropolitan and rural areas. Such development brings jobs, economic revenue in the form of increased spending and mineral royalties, and energy that is used by nearly all Americans.1,2 Developing shale resources also entails massive industrial activity that requires the in-migration of specialized workforces, equipment, and materials, along with the possible risk of various kinds of environmental degradation. 3,4 Smaller towns and rural communities will play host to much of this development, and the small population of these places can make them most susceptible to many of the adverse impacts associated with shale gas development. This Critical Review summarizes much of the established and emerging research on the risks to communities from shale gas development and outlines key research gaps and research steps that can be taken to help better understand and ameliorate these risks. Shale energy is a new phenomenon and as such our level of direct knowledge on community risks from this phenomenon is low. However, there is an array of community research that has focused on previous forms of oil and gas development, other types of energy extraction, and other types of technological harm. This research can be applicable to the current context, but the ways in which it is relevant and applicable are not well established. Much of the existing literature is variable in academic orientation, the type of energy development, and the time period in which it was produced. This paper organizes this research around four key areas of risk to communities that emerge from this collection of literature: © 2014 American Chemical Society

(1) rapid industrialization, (2) uneven distribution of costs and benefits, (3) community conflict, and (4) social−psychological stress and disruption. Risk analysis is often limited to probabilistic assessments of potential harm to human health and economic value, despite commonly accepted definitions of risk that are much broader that these two domains. Rosa describes risk as: “A situation or event in which something of human value (including humans themselves) has been put at stake and where the outcome is uncertain.5 Aven and Renn have provided a more technical definition: “Risk refers to uncertainty about and severity of the events and consequences (or outcomes) of an activity with respect to something that humans value.”6 Following the calls of Short Jr., Wilkinson, Jacquet, Stedman, and others to expand the breadth of risk analysis, this approach utilizes a broad and multidimensional definition of risk that includes risks to social, psychological, and economic assets that are valued at the community level.7−10 Expanding the concept of risk beyond the easily quantifiable is not without its challenges, especially for a discipline that is often centered on probabilistic calculations; however, this does not mean that these risks are not quantifiable or that assessments of probability cannot be made. Special Issue: Understanding the Risks of Unconventional Shale Gas Development Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 8321

October 17, 2013 February 20, 2014 February 25, 2014 March 13, 2014 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es404647x | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8321−8333

Environmental Science & Technology

■

Critical Review

1970s and early 1980s.31,32 This era produced a bevy of sociological literature on the social and economic effects of rapid industrialization, including overwhelmed housing supplies, stressed municipal services and government programs, and disrupted long-standing social and economic patterns.33−36 Energy price spikes invariably lead to energy price declines, and energy extraction and development activity can halt as quickly as it began.37 Nearly all of the boomtown examples from the 1970s and early 1980s experienced rapid outmigration in the years around 1983−1985, many experienced subsequent decades of plunging property values, poverty, and high-unemployment.14,37 A series of longitudinal studies of the boomtown community of Delta, Utah, which experienced rapid growth in the 1970s and a severe bust by the mid-1980s, found that residents reported their quality of life and community satisfaction to have declined significantly in the bust years, but to have eventually returned to nearly preboom levels about 20 years after the bust.38 The authors called it a boom−bust− recovery cycle of energy-impacted communities, although it was a recovery that took two decades to mature. Rapid Industrialization and Ineffective Governance. Rapid industrialization occurring from energy development presents both short-term and long-term problems at the community and municipal level. Many of the problems stem from the fact that municipalities rarely have the ability to control energy development activity that occurs nearby. In the western U.S., development often occurs on federal land or on a privately held tract located outside of the municipal jurisdiction; in the eastern U.S., state statute largely exempts the authority of local municipalities to regulate the natural gas drilling process or dictate the locations where it may occur. The rights of municipalities are currently being tested in a number of court cases and legislative actions in New York, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere; the New York State Department of Environmental conservation recently proposed a plan that, while not providing municipalities with regulatory authority, would slow the issuance of drilling permits if nearby communities requested it. Such lack of local control has been shown to result in inadequate mitigation practices, insufficient revenues to local communities to deal with boomtown problems, and local decision-making hampered by limited information and uncertainty.30,31,33,36,39 Rapid rates of growth in small community contexts can result in unplanned and haphazard development that may present short- and long-term social and economic risk to the area. While communities can regulate residential and commercial types of construction and other development within their jurisdictions, many rural communities historically lack the capacity or desire to regulate or restrict building activity, especially during times of shortages and high demand. Existing residents, so-called “old timers”, often resist changes at the municipal level (such as zoning restrictions, building codes, lodging taxes, etc.) needed to manage growth problems, while “new comers” from larger cities are accustomed to such municipal changes.35 In the short term, this can lead to overburdened infrastructure services, substandard housing construction, and undesirable building locations and plans. Increased costs and substandard qualities of living can lead to out-migration of the residents who can find opportunity elsewhere. This in turn causes less outside investment and service provision in the community, leading to more quality of life problems for

RISK OF RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION (BOOM AND BUST) Communities that are dependent on the extraction of natural resources (such as timber resources, fisheries, energy, and minerals) are often associated with benefits, such as employment opportunities and business. Large mills, mines, and plants can provide relatively high-paying employment to communities that lack many other opportunities, and new businesses can grow to service these workers. Communities at the height of unconventional oil and gas development repeatedly measure some of lowest rates of unemployment and highest rates of economic growth in the nation. The oil boomtown of Williston, N.D., for example, enjoyed an unemployment rate of only 0.70% in July 2013, and a 32.09% growth in jobs over the previous 12 months, compared to a national unemployment rate of 7.4% and 0.32% increase in jobs nationally during that same period.11 However, contrary to these assumptions of increased employment and economic growth, an array of social and economic research has found that these benefits are short-term compared to longer−term substandard social and economic performance when compared to similarly sized communities without nearby natural resources.12−15 Resource dependence (as measured by the percentage of people employed and/or deriving income from this sector) tends to be associated with spikes in short-term employment and economic activity. Over the long-term, natural resource dependent communities experience relatively high rates of unemployment and poverty, instability, inequality, crime, and low educational attainment.15−20 These findings are reasonably robust across different measures of dependence, and over time, revealing the emergence in many places of lasting and persistent underdevelopment associated with resource dependence.14,21−24 These disappointing outcomes of natural resource dependent communities have led to term “the resource curse”, a term that was originally applied to the substandard outcomes of developing nations otherwise rich in mineral wealth but has increasingly been applied to the resource dependent communities of developed nations as well.25−27 A similar set of reasons for this underperformance are suspected at both the nation and community level: susceptibility to volatile economic patterns related to mineral development, a lack of wealth captured at the local level, decreased outside investment, a lack of economic diversity, and ineffective governance.28 When taken as a whole, the outlook for resource-dependent communities is rather gloomy; however, individual communities will vary in the range of outcomes they experience, on the basis of factors such as location and size.29 Market Volatility. Energy price spikes can lead to rapid exploration and development of energy resources, resulting locally in massive industrial development and worker inmigration over a short period of time.30 Such development demands a tremendous amount of labor that cannot be supplied by local residents, and the result is population growth. The United States is replete with examples of so-called “boomtown” phenomena, ranging from the “gold rush” communities of historical American West, to ongoing examples related to shale gas and oil development occurring in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Texas, and North Dakota. Hundreds of communities across the western United States experienced rapid industrialization and in-migration because of energy development spurred by high energy price spikes of the 8322

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es404647x | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8321−8333


Critical Review

can result in a loss of institutions (e.g. church groups, neighborhood associations, etc.) that historically provide informal control over social problems including crime, drug abuse, and mental illness, instead requiring formal organizations such as the police and court system to address these problems.9,52,53 Probability of “Boomtown” Industrialization. Clearly not all communities facing shale gas development will experience the full range of boomtown effects. Growth pressure is felt in most communities experiencing shale gas development, although the severe and overwhelming rates of growth that are the hallmark of the “boomtown model” have not uniformly occurred. Rapid population growth is a function of both the size and composition of the in-migrant workforce, but also the size of the population of the host community. Many communities that experience boomtown conditions are not only small, but also isolated from other towns so that the brunt of population growth is absorbed by a single community. Pinedale, Wyoming near tight-sands gas development, Williston, North Dakota near Bakken Shale oil development, and Yorktown, Texas, near Eagle Ford Shale gas development, are all active examples of energy boomtowns. Each has experienced annual growth rates between 12 and 17% while being located in relatively rural and isolated areas.30,54−56 Meanwhile, towns, such as Montrose and Towanda, Pennsylvania have experienced significant growth pressures and associated problems, but such growth has largely not reached the severe and overwhelming levels noted in the above examples.57 Rural areas in the eastern U.S. (such as northern Pennsylvania) have a higher population density that can help to mediate growth pressures by partially absorbing housing and service demand. Elmira, New York, for example, which historically has had a glut of available apartments and motel rooms, is receiving natural gas workforces who commute to gas drilling locations in Pennsylvania that are often an hour away or more. In the Barnett Shale in Texas, growth pressures are largely alleviated by close proximity of the Dallas−Fort Worth metroplex. Applicability and Limitations of the Boomtown Research. The social disruption hypothesis has been extended to rural communities across the globe undergoing rapid change from other types of development, including slaughterhouses and gambling.58−61 Rising energy prices have caused a new reinvigoration of energy extraction, and the social disruption hypothesis has recently been revisited in new energy development contexts where rapid growth is occurring.9,21,52,62−66 Though the boomtown phenomenon has received sociological study for several decades, the findings of this research are limited in several ways. The boomtown fluctuations in population and economic activity are as problematic for rigorous sociological study as they are for municipal management. The boomtown model and social disruption hypothesis have been criticized for a lack of empirical data in academic journals, few pre- and post-boom analyses, a failure to differentiate among community subpopulations, and inadequate consideration of cultural or historical differences.8,45,67,68 New societal trends have also emerged since this research was conducted, including the maturation of the environmental movement, the so-called “risk society” of increased risk perception, and the advent of Internet technology, among others.21 Many of the studies in this realm were qualitative in nature, and quantitative measures of indicators such as crime,

residents who remain. Gilmore, in an article in the journal Science, called this short-term issue the “Problem Triangle”.33 In the long term, much of the building activity (especially motel, apartment rental, and other types of housing construction) that occurs during the boom times will prove unsustainable when development activity declines. In the face of short-term demand, town governing bodies may find it difficult to deny the construction of an apartment complex because of questions over its long-term sustainability.39 Inability to Capture Wealth. A related issue has been the inability for local boomtown communities to capture and retain the wealth produced nearby. As municipalities often do not own the resource, they are not privy to the royalties that are accumulated. More importantly, policies are not always in place for the local communities to tax the energy development or otherwise gain fiscal assistance to pay for the increased municipal demands. During the 1970s and 1980s, fierce policy debates occurred at the state and federal levels over the degree to which impacted communities should receive tax revenues from development that occurs in their jurisdictions.40−42 Most western states have since enacted fiscal policies that dictate how certain amounts of money flow back to the host communities to offset costs associated with development. In other contexts, where oil and gas booms have not occurred as recently, such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York, these revenue streams are less consistent. Pennsylvania, for example, has recently enacted a “fee” charged to energy operators, and half of the proceeds flow back to the community where the well is sited, although the fee is still a fraction of the amounts charged in western areas.43 However, even in states with municipality-friendly revenue structures, funding often only materializes after municipalities have been dealing with growth problems and expenses for several years. In addition, these funds (while potentially very large) may only be large enough to pay for the immediate costs of infrastructure upgrades, staffing expansion, and service provision. Saving revenue to pay for expanded municipal services and economic development during the eventual downturn can be difficult and even disadvantageous if there is a possibility that the state government may seize and redistribute such unspent funds. Social and Cultural Effects of Boomtown Development. The strongly-rooted social and cultural patterns that characterize rural communities, including well-defined leadership roles and a high density of acquaintanceship, can be disrupted by the rapid economic and demographic changes accompanying nearby energy extraction.44−46 England and Albrecht describe what has become known as the "social disruption hypothesis" as: “a period of generalized crisis and loss of traditional routines and attitudes. The crisis strikes individuals whose mental health, worldview and social networks may all be disrupted. It strikes at the organizational level where existing businesses and associations must struggle to meet the challenge of newcomers. It also reaches the community level as the homogeneous culture is disrupted and services are often taxed. (p 231 of ref 36). Building from the classical sociology of Tonnies and Durkheim, the social disruption hypothesis places emphasis on the formalization of what were previously informal social and economic relationships.47−49 Newcomers to the community alter social structures as shared histories and cultural ties disappear; community members may be forced out of social roles held for generations.50,51 The loss of close-knit social ties 8323



Critical Review

recourse. Yet, in western contexts, where split-estate is common and even historical in nature, such properties are commonly ensured, appraised, and mortgaged for both primary residents and vacation homes. It is possible that the development of split estate in eastern areas will eventually become an uncontroversial and accepted practice; however, it is unclear how long such acceptance will take. Such variation in revenue opportunities also portends a variation in attitudes toward the development. This split in benefit distribution was largely not accounted for in the original boomtown literature that tended to characterize differences in attitudes as function of employment opportunities (i.e., “newcomers” versus “old-timers”).35 Probability of Uneven Cost and Benefit. Even though the capture and distribution of wealth at the local level has been identified as a key component of community health and wellbeing, and such uneven distributions of wealth have been noted in areas of natural resource extraction, a recent USDA review observes that “efforts to conceptualize and measure rural wealth have been limited” (p. iii) and efforts to do so in energy impacted areas even less so.78 Importantly, economic behavior at the community level can represent a scale too large to be considered at the micro level and too small to be considered at the macro level.78 Economic circular flow models raise important questions about how energy-derived income circulates, the degree to which it can be captured at the local level, and its relationship to investment and wealth. Interindustry models provide a useful tool for tracking income flows, but include only minimalist behavioral assumptions regarding savings/investment/wealth.79 Two related factors that will determine the likelihood of uneven wealth distribution is whether the minerals are privately or publically owned, and the structures in place that can return revenues to the impacted communities. It is reasonable to assume that areas of public mineral ownership, and areas with taxation structures that return revenues to impacted municipalities will result in lower degrees of uneven wealth distribution; however little research comparing wealth distribution among these various areas exists to test this assumption. Additional factors, such as community cohesion and capacity, as well as the degree of urban integration, are likely to determine their effect on wealth capture and distribution.

mental health, and population growth often lacked control groups with which to compare the results.

■

RISK OF UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF COST AND BENEFIT Unlike the traditional boomtown examples in the western U.S., the vast majority of mineral rights east of the Rockies are held by private landowners. Privately held mineral rights provide an avenue for wealth to flow to local residents, with implications for local economic growth, community development, and local control.69 Landowners can receive payments from energy firms for the option to drill on the property, and an additional royalty on the value of oil or gas that is produced. In the U.S., lease payments in prime development areas have reached several thousand dollars per acre for a 3−5 year period, which can represent a large windfall for landowners who own hundreds or thousands of acres. Royalty payments typically range between 10% and 20% of the value of the energy produced, which can result in very large sums of wealth accrued to the landowner during the early years of production, before the rate of oil and gas produced from the well drops precipitously.2 These lease and royalty revenues can have several implications for rural communities that go beyond an improved economic position of local residents. Research has explored the emergence of “landowner coalitions” that form to collectively bargain with energy firms and found the potential (thus far unrealized) for these groups to create lasting community institutions that can affect socioeconomic mitigation, community development, environmental mitigation practices.69 Perhaps more importantly, if and how this local wealth is invested locally can have large impacts on communities where the development occurs.70 In general, rural communities across the United States face a coming deluge of wealth and property transfers as residents in these communities continue to age amid rapid outmigration of younger residents; in a growing number of rural places, the median age is above 60 years old and rising, and future heirs are unlikely to live in these rural areas.71 In areas where energy-derived wealth has accumulated, the prospect of vast and newly created wealth soon being transferred to heirs living in urban locations is real. The distribution of leasing payments and production royalties is far from uniform. Community members who do not own property are automatically ineligible for these types of monetary benefits. Residents who do own property that is less attractive to energy developers may receive some leasing offers that are markedly reduced from offers received by landowners in prime locations. Split Estate. Other residents may own their property, but the right to develop the minerals below the property (mineral rights) may be owned by someone else (a situation often called “split estate”). Situations of split estate become more common as energy development in a location matures, and landowners seek to sell or subdivide their property but retain the profitable mineral rights.72 Owning property where gas drilling occurs, but without reaping the fiscal rewards, has been noted qualitatively and quantitatively as an undesirable situation.73−75 Split estate may have long-term implications for land tenure, home sales, and outside investment. Procedurally, mortgage issuance, financing qualifications, insurance, and appraisal activities can be restricted in areas of severed subsurface mineral rights.76,77 Amenity-led development may also be hampered by the prospect of nearby mineral development occurring without

■

RISK OF COMMUNITY CONFLICT AND “CORROSIVE COMMUNITIES” Several national- and regional-level survey results show relatively even percentages of respondents who indicate they are either for or against shale oil and gas development, with a sizable portion of respondents who are undecided or have no opinion.80−82 Conversely, emerging data from host communities show deep divisions among residents as attitudes toward shale development and perceptions of impacts are much more polarized depending on factors, such as financial gain and environmental worldview.73 Despite this trend toward polarization, it is clear that many residents view shale gas development as mix of costs and benefits.57,62 Disparities in resident attitudes toward development has been noted in various communities facing shale gas development, with degree of economic benefit viewed as a key variable influencing attitudes.83 Examples of attitudes toward shale gas development at least partially driven by economic benefit include communities in Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York.57,62,63,70,84 In Pennsylvania, attitudes toward energy 8324



Critical Review

perceived causes, and distaste over perceived benefits.87 In these cases, the community conflict arising from perceived environmental contamination may be more harmful than the contamination itself.88 Conflict was also a theme in natural resource sociological research from the 1970s and 1980s, with existing residents struggling with cultural changes to the community, changes in municipal regulation, and competition for services.35,49 Economic opportunity as a cause of conflict was also a theme in this literature, as in lieu of mineral ownership, employment was the main mechanism by which residents could benefit from the development and in-migrant workers were often in a better position to take advantage of employment opportunities.89,90 Trust. Trust, as is the case in the “corrosive communities” framework, is becoming of increasing importance in shale gas communities, as new research shows that decreased trust in governing bodies and officials correlates strongly with increased perception of risks, increased stress, and increased reportage of physical and mental health problems.91−93 Probability of Community Conflict. Freudenburg and Jones identify an ambiguity of “fault”, a lack of trust, and a lack of local leadership as community attributes likely to produce conflict at the local level.87 Heterogeneity of the community population, including differing levels of income and education may produce conflict at the local level. Emerging survey results show that environmental attitudes (which are typically correlated with income and education) as well as uneven distribution of costs of benefits appear to drive the most polarized attitudes toward energy development.

development has been positively correlated with leasing and royalty income (see Figure 1 below).73 These studies

Figure 1. 2011 Survey (N = 1052) of landowner’s attitudes toward shale gas drilling in Northern Pennsylvania, based on the amount of development and associated income received.64,73

demonstrate that resident attitudes toward development in energy impacted communities may be much more complex than described by the boomtown researchers, such as Gilmore, Markussen, and others.33,35 Community conflict is well-known in communities undergoing environmental hazards.86 Freudenburg and Jones coined the term “corrosive communities” to describe the debilitating social atmosphere containing fierce debates over the nature of environmental risks amid poor and contradictory information, mistrust of public officials and agencies, blame over the

Figure 2. Map from Christopherson et al. that shows local-level legislation regarding natural gas development involving high volume hydrofracturing (HVHF).85 Townships shaded green represent support for development. Yellow and Red shaded townships represent opposition. Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2013 Cornell University Community and Regional Development Institute. 8325



■

Critical Review

RISK OF COMMUNITY STIGMA AND UNDERINVESTMENT Stigma, a concept with a long history in sociology and psychology, typically refers to the labeling and categorization of an individual based on perceived negative and disgraceful attributes. Goffman considered stigma as creating a “spoiled identity”, personal identities that would be otherwise based upon typical personal or cultural attributes that are instead hijacked by negative connotations associated with a stigmatizing feature or event.94 The idea that identities are partially informed by place and that an identity can be spoiled by industrial development has long been observed in the context of siting of nuclear or hazardous waste facilities: while residents most prominently fear the health risks related to proximity to hazardous waste, they also fear that their community will become stigmatized, and take on a narrative of contamination.95−100 There is increasing evidence that communities are becoming stigmatized by perceived environmental contamination related to shale energy development, especially in instances of water contamination. One resident in Pavillion, Wyoming, discussing the alleged aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing that made national news, illustrated the phenomenon by stating “I don’t think the problem is our water is bad. I think the problem is everyone thinks the water is bad”.101 Despite little or no actual toxic exposure, Edelstein (p.43) shows how the stigma of contamination "profoundly affects how they think about themselves, their families and their world", calling the effects a "lifescape change".102103 Baxter et al. (p. 106) describe "psychosocial shocks" that residents must endure as "residents' identities and security in traditional rural ways of life were the most dreaded threats from development."104 A number of studies of Canadian aboriginal peoples found that the clinical effects of mercury exposure were far less harmful than the stigma of a polluted envrionment.105 In addition to the psychological impacts from stigmatization, communities that carry a stigma of contamination may also face adverse social and economic outcomes. Described as “the kiss of death” for the real estate industry (p 6), a reputation of contamination can cause outmigration and repel investment and amenity-led in-migration.106 The 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, for example, is estimated to have caused $2.4 billion in property damages to the surrounding community, despite no human health problems having ever been associated with the accident.107 Communities with “brownfield” sites are disproportionately found in areas struggling economically, leading to a potential downward spiral of disinvestment, even though many sites have negligible measurable environmental concerns but suffer from perceptions of severe contamination.108 Conversely, examples of successful remediation of contaminated areas are also quite common, amid an estimated 450,000 brownfields in the U.S. that remain unremediated.109 Academic treatment in this area is largely case-based and a comprehensive understanding of variation in brownfield redevelopment is lacking.86,100 Probability of Community Stigma. A number of shale gas communities have already become widely associated with various types of environmental contamination and health problems, including Pavillion, Wyoming, Pinedale, Wyoming, Dish, Texas, and Dimock, Pennsylvania. Clearly, these locations are home to real or perceived contamination events, but they have also been subject to intense media scrutiny, including from

national news stories, high-profile celebrity visits, and popular films, such as Gasland. Many more communities are the sites of negative events related to shale energy development but that have not been as widely reported in the media. As noted in recent articles regarding biofuels development, the outcome of the framing battle between industry and environmental groups over the magnitude of environmental problems and economic benefits will determine how these events are viewed among the larger public.110,111 Yet, as with many examples of perceived environmental contamination, in each of these communities, the scientific data on the scope and cause of contamination is uncertain at best, and often contradictory and confusing. In many ways, the lack of certainly does little to shed the stigma of contamination and may only reinforce it further.

■

RISK OF SOCIAL−PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS Health impact assessments that have been performed in gas development communities have found stress to be among the largest impacts faced by residents.112,83 As the social disruption literature shows, natural gas development that includes hydraulic fracturing represents a range of complex stressor events that are clearly more multidimensional than simply the risk of damage to health or property. Residents in areas undergoing rapid energy development must navigate widespread concern over chemical exposure, water and air contamination, and the risk of large-scale disasters from new technologies used in the extraction process (such as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”).113 Residents must also internalize the aforementioned transformational changes to the social and economic character of these communities, as population growth and industrialization alter the area. Rapid and dramatic change associated with shale gas development can produce subtle yet powerful impacts to a person’s community and environment, disrupting cultural values and identities ranging from shared historical narratives, to behavioral patterns, to group affiliation. In comparison to impacts on property and physical health, the more subtle effects that these events can have on mental health, identity, and community has thus far received much less attention. Disrupted Place-Based Identities. Individuals form unique and meaningful affective and symbolic connections to a place with a particular culture and physical environment.114 Residents use their community's social and physical environment to construct narratives of what it is like to live there. Residents may describe their hometown as a "farming community" or a "fishing village", or may describe their place of residence more vaguely as "close knit" or a "rural area". Jacquet and Stedman provide examples of how these meanings can "exude environmental qualities ('a place with clean air and water'), social cohesion ('a place where everybody knows everybody'), safety ('a place where you don't have to lock your doors at night'), and mental restoration ('a place to get away from it all')."9 Place identity and attachment reflects “a fundamental human need” for people to be bonded emotionally to certain locales (p. 146).115 Social−psychological studies have found that disruption to closely held cultural attributes can result in acute and chronic stress, adverse mental health outcomes, and psychological trauma.116,105 Residents in Alaskan communities surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown clinical signs of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.117−119 Yet the connection between cultural disruption, spoiled place identities, and mental health remains poorly articulated and has not been quantified. Preliminary research on 8326



■

health effects related to energy development was performed decades ago, but new advancements in conceptualizing and quantifying cultural attributes such as place identity and meaning allow for a more complete understanding of multidimensional stressor events and their effects on health outcomes.9,120,121 Decades ago researchers found that long-time residents in communities affected by rapid energy development can experience a dramatic increase in mental health issues, which can lead to substance abuse, relationship problems, and physical health concerns, even if there is little to no risk of health or environmental contamination in the area.50,122,123 In 1979, in one of the few medical assessments of stress and mental health performed in energy impacted communities, Weisz found that in Gillette, Wyoming, the average resident measured a score of 308 on the Holmes and Rahe’s Social Readjustment Rating Scale (scores over 300 are classified as “major life stress” by the SRRS).121 Of the respondents with this score or above, Weisz found 49% of them had experienced physical illness in the 9 months following the stress assessment, compared to only 10% of respondents who scored lower measures of stress.121 Bougsty et al found similar results in a study of respondents in Wheatland, Wyoming, during the construction of a large energy facility.120 Public health researchers have since re-engaged the relationship among changes to community, environment, and public health outcomes.112,124 Yet, as Krieskey notes, “So far, researchers have not systematically studied the link between social impacts and health conditions” (p. 1), and reasons for increased stress and mental health problems in rapidly changing communities have not been well-articulated.124 In the field of risk analysis, it is well-known that the ways in which residents and stakeholders communicate possible risks and benefits plays a key role in how are risks are perceived. The Social Amplification of Risk Framework for example, describes this process and how relatively minor risks or risk events can become dreadful burdens for residents of affected communities.125 Research in Australia has found that reported health impacts from wind farms followed a spatial and temporal pattern consistent with impacts being “communicated” from one to another.126 Probability of Social−Psychological Disruption. Jacquet and Stedman describe the ways in which social− psychological disruption fits well within the existing risk perception framework, although little research has explicitly engaged this utilization.9 Persons who view proposed development as incongruent with existing place meanings are likely to perceive a strong likelihood of place disruption, while persons with an additionally strong attachment to their place or community are likely to perceive the magnitude of this disruption as more severe. Numerous works demonstrate that types of place meaning and strength of place attachment can be used to predict place disruption and oppositional social actions.127−129 Stedman, after linking high levels of place attachment and "place-protective behavior" in a study of lakeshore home owners, concluded, "We are most willing to defend places that are strongly tied to our identity and for which we hold negative attitudes ('important but threatened')" (p 576).130,131 Devine-Wright and Howes found similar sentiments among residents opposed to renewable energy development - those who associated with mentally restorative meanings with their locale were more likely to oppose the development compared with those harboring economic meanings.132

Critical Review

IMPLICATIONS AND GAPS IN THE KNOWLEDGE

The collection of literature discussed heretofore suggests the real possibility of significant short and long-term risks to communities where shale energy development occurs. While the probability of occurrence of these risks in specific contexts has not been quantified, many of the major variables involved have been articulated. The following section discusses several key gaps in our understanding of the prevalence and magnitude of these risks. Some of the examples given above are derived from contexts different than the communities faced with shale energy development, while others rely on imperfect data or represent snapshots in time targeted and sometimes long-term research will be required to fill these gaps in our ability to assess these risks. Knowledge Gap: Intergenerational Transfer of Wealth and the Community Capture of Wealth. While there is a large literature about community economic impacts, most of it focuses on short-term circulation of money and jobs within the economy rather than on long-term growth and the accumulation of wealth.133 The input−output type economic models used by economists to describe the monetary and employment effects of oil and gas activity are not well-suited to study the drivers of community-level wealth creation, retention and growth. Likewise, the attention in community and economic development literature that has been given to wealth creation and retention, as compared to income generation and circulation, is distressingly sparse. One of the key critiques made of some of the early work on the economics of shale energy development is the failure to adequately discriminate between wealth and income.133,134 A more wealth-centered community-level approach has been developed by the Ford Foundation’s Wealth Creation in Rural Communities project.135 This approach combines a multiple capitals framework with the importance of demand-driven value chain analysis.135 This analysis is informed by the goal of increasing local “stickiness” of wealth as well as paying explicit attention to issues of equity and poverty alleviation at local and regional levels of aggregation and marketsheds. The Rural Policy Research Institute and the Center for Rural America’s Transfer of Wealth approach also focuses on wealth over income, focusing on intergenerational wealth transfers and the role of institutions like community foundations in helping community members dedicate a portion of their wealth to community building as well as their own progeny.70,136,137 These approaches focus on wealth creation in communitylevel contexts, but have largely not addressed the specific and complex community development challenges associated with energy development. A main question is the degree to and ways in which royalties to landowners can serve to mitigate the longterm community-level problems identified in the resource curse and boomtown literature.138−142 What happens, for example, when farmer-landowners receive mineral wealth? Are they more likely to invest in farm operations or consumer spending? To stay on the land or move elsewhere? Limited data from Pennsylvania suggests a mix of outcomes, with significant investment in the land, though the new personal wealth may prompt/enable a shift to lower intensity farmland management regimes.143 Exploration of these research areas can inform community initiatives aimed at capturing wealth at the local level. Knowledge Gap: Relationship between Health Outcomes and Social−Psychological Disruption. Stressful 8327



Critical Review

the actual and perceived contamination from shale energy result in novel kind of remediation context? What are the long-term effects of “corrosive communities” that experience years of division and conflict? Answers to these questions can aid not only community leaders working to mitigate the socioeconomic effects of environmental contamination but can also better inform policy over the proper design and funding of state and federally mandated monitoring and remediation programs intended to prevent these types of deleterious impacts. Knowledge Gap: Long-Term Development Picture for Shale Gas Industry. Many applications of the boomtown framework included resources or construction projects that were located at a specific location. Today’s shale developments have a very wide geographic footprint, and development may move to various locations, and then return. The amount of recoverable resource found in these areas is immense. In the Marcellus and Utica shales, energy companies secure land holdings via the bare minimum amount of drilling necessary and intend to return to the area to “infill” drilling in that location.153 In the Marcellus Shale, the average number of wells drilled per location is slightly above 2, even though each drilling location has the geologic capacity to receive up to 12 wells; thus, companies are leaving locations with as much as 80% or more of the resource yet to be extracted.153 The companies will likely return for the infill development, but the questions are as follows: When? And will they do it all at once or perhaps over several different development cycles? Better knowledge of the longer-term picture will aid communities in planning beyond the immediate booms and busts and to help mitigate the problems and accentuate the benefits of resource development. A Need for Information and Transparency from Industry. Unconventional gas development has remained high despite prices that have dropped very low. Prominent analysts have advanced a rationale that some shale energy companies are much more interested in financial speculation than the typical production and sale of commodities and are thus more concerned with prices of stocks than commodities.154−157 Such motivations may run contrary to the typical pattern of resource extraction implicitly embodied by the boomtown model, and the implications for development at the local level are unclear. Since boomtown days of the 1970s, it has been noted that a lack of information about future activity is among the biggest hampers of municipal planning and mitigation.35,39 Industry actors have a complex range of motivations that influence the disclosure of their planned activities; companies must conceal important information from their competitors, while securing support from their investors and winning the support of landowners, officials, and residents. As Markusen noted in 1978, these needs often incentivize the concealment or even misrepresentation of plans for future drilling activity.35 Lots of Mini-Booms and Mini-Busts? In many of these regions, the amount of unextracted resource is likely to outlive current and even future economic conditions. The resource will always be available, but only if there is enough economic or market incentive at a particular time to develop the resource. Shale development potential is so expansive and accessible in many locations that development may bust and reboom again. Indeed, some areas of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado were heavily impacted in the 1970s and 1980s and have seen a reemergence of activity since the mid-2000s. Few attempts have been made to examine the longer-term effects of repeated booms and busts in these locales. At the local level, it is often

change events caused by energy development and environmental change can be multidimensional and multimedia, yet health research typically focuses on stress related to changes that are tangible or easily quantifiable, such as changes in familial status, employment, mobility, or catastrophic events, with less attention paid to the harder to measure changes to the social and environmental fabric of where people live.7−9,144 As discussed above, increasing amounts of evidence suggest that the cumulative effects of small changes to community identities, environmental-based place meanings, ways of life, social relationships, etc., result in stress and possibly adverse health outcomes, along with the perception of additional health risks and concerns.86,100,112,118,119,124,145 Some strides are being made in this area but the full nature of stressor events must be adequately explained, and tools for measurement must be developed, if stress from transformative changes is to be better predicted and treated.92,93 The results of this research will aid health practitioners, community developers, emergency response personnel, and policy makers who wish to improve the quality of life of residents in energy-impacted communities and other communities undergoing rapid or dramatic change. Health researchers have increasingly noted that a better understanding of the relationship between energy development and health outcomes, including social support, life satisfaction, and mental health issues, such as depression, is critical to developing and implementing intervention programs designed to prevent and/or treat negative health outcomes.124,146 Questions include: To what degree do disrupted social and cultural patterns influence stress and health outcomes? Which populations are most susceptible, and how can we measure this susceptibility? How can we treat and prevent these concerns? Clinicians, researchers, and community partners can then use the new measures and findings to screen and assess individual place identity disruption, identify individuals or populations more susceptible, and then develop appropriate and effective means to decrease identity disruption and resultant negative health outcomes. Knowledge Gap: Effects of Stigma and Conflict on Long-Term Investment and Sustainability. A fair amount of research has been performed on the redevelopment of brownfield sites and other small-scale geographies, but less research has examined the long-term trends in investment in entire communities or even regions.29,147−149 Longitudinal examinations exist of places stigmatized by large-scale disasters, such as communities around the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, and Three-Mile Island.107,145,150 However, little is known on the prospects of recovery from less calamitous situations such as distrust in local institutions, breakdowns in resident communications, and hampered decision making ability.37,38 Yet, shale oil and gas development portends a complex mix of potentially dysfunctional attributes, ranging from community conflict, social disruption, lack of trust, reputations of contamination, and land-ownership inequities. How these factors of “corrosive community” interact, their perseverance over time, and how they affect economic and social sustainability is not well-known.145,151,152 Questions include the following: Will communities that are associated with shale energy contamination experience adverse effects on population growth and investment? If adverse effects do occur, will it primarily affect certain types of investment, such as amenity-led development? Are shale energy contaminants likely to lead to “brownfield”-type remediation and associated challenges, or will 8328



Critical Review

Marcellus Shale Education and Training Center: Williamsport, PA, 2011; http://www.shaletec.org/docs/ EconomicImpactFINALAugust28.pdf. (3) Jacquet, J. Workforce Development Challenges in the Natural Gas Industry. Cornell City and Regional Planning Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, 2010. (4) Warner, N. R.; Christie, C. A.; Jackson, R. B.; Vengosh, A. Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (20), 11849− 11857. (5) Rosa, E. A. Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-Normal Risk. J. Risk Res. 1998, 1, 15−44. (6) Aven, T.; Renn, O. On Risk Defined As an Event Where the Outcome Is Uncertain. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12, 1−11. (7) Short, J. F., Jr. The Social Fabric at Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1984, 49, 711−725. (8) Wilkinson, I. Social Theories of Risk Perception: At Once Indispensable and Insufficient . Curr. Sociol. 2001, 49, 1−22. (9) Jacquet, J. B.; Stedman, R. C. Using Risk Analysis to Measure Social−Psychological Disruption As an Impact of Energy Development and Environmental Change. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2013, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.820174. (10) Rosa, E. A.; Clarke, L. A Collective Hunch? Risk As the Real and the Elusive. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2011, 2, 39−52. (11) United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data View Finder. www.bls.gov (accessed 10/11/2012). (12) Freudenburg, W R.; Gramling, R. A Link to What? Economic Linkages and an Extractive Economy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1998, 11, 569− 586. (13) Freudenburg, W. R.; Gramling, R.; Shurman, R. A Natural Resource Extraction and Rural Economic Prospects: A Closer Look. The Western Planner 1998, 19 (8), 6. (14) Bunker, S. G. The Poverty of Resource Extraction. In New Directions in the Sociology of Global Development, Research in Rural Sociology and Development, Vol. 11; Buttel, F. H., McMichael, P., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, U.K., 2005; pp 211−226. (15) Headwaters Economics. Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy: Are Energy-Focusing Counties Benefiting?; Headwaters Economics: Bozeman, MT, 2009; http:// headwaterseconomics.org/pubs/energy/HeadwatersEconomics_ EnergyFocusing.pdf. (16) Force, J. E.; Machlis, G. E.; Zhang, L.; Kearney, A. The Relationship Between Timber Production, Local Historical Events, and Community Social Change. A Qualitative Case Study. For. Sci. 1993, 39, 722−742. (17) Hamilton, L. C.; Seyfrit, C.L. Resources and Hope in Newfoundland. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994, 7, 561−578. (18) Humphrey, C.; Berardi, G.; Fortmann, L.; Geisler, C.; Johnson, C.; Kusel, J.; Lee, R.; Macinko, S.; Schulman, M.; West, P. Theories in the Study of Natural Resource Dependent Communities and Persistent Rural Poverty in the United States; In Persistent Poverty in Rural America, Rural Studies Series; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1993; pp 136−172. (19) Stedman, R. C.; Parkins, J. R.; Beckley, T. M. Resource Dependence and Community Well-Being in Rural Canada. Rural Sociol. 2004, 69, 213−234. (20) Stedman, R. C.; Jacquet, J. B.; Filteau, M.; Willits, F.; Brasier, K.; McLaughlin, D. Marcellus Shale Gas Development and New Boomtown Research: Views of New York and Pennsylvania Residents. Environ. Pract. 2012, 14, 382−393. (21) Stedman, R. C.; White, W.; Patriquin, M.; Watson, D. Measuring Community Forest Sector Dependence: Does Method Matter? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007, 20, 629−646. (22) Stedman, R. C.; Patriquin, M. N.; Parkins, J. R. Forest Dependence and Community Well-Being in Rural Canada: A Longitudinal Analysis. Forestry 2011, DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpr024.

difficult for energy-impacted communities to plan at all, much less plan for dramatic shifts in municipal services associated with long-term volatility in development activity.34,41 Indeed, even academics, who ought to know better, often do not consider “the bust” when describing problems and solutions for local municipalities.70 The changing oil and gas industry footprint dictates that communities may need to plan for the repeated mini-booms and mini-busts associated with the extraction of such a large available resource.

■

CONCLUSIONS This Critical Review covers several fairly disparate literatures on the possible risks communities face from nearby shale energy development and identifies four key areas of research that will aid in identifying the magnitude and probability of these risks to individual communities. The existing research in this area is at once both indispensable and deeply limited, and in the midst of a shale energy boom that spans North America and the world, the time for updating this research is now. We must do a better job of identifying and empirically documenting the reasons for the variability in the outcomes observed in communities. Some communities may experience mostly positive outcomes and others will not. Which types of communities are most likely to capture long-term wealth to ameliorate possible economic problems, and which communities are not likely to do so? Which populations of individuals are most susceptible to stress and related adverse health outcomes and which populations are not? Many of the knowledge gaps identified here raise long-term questions, and a long-term and concerted effort is required by researchers to answer them. These knowledge gaps represent areas of critical importance, yet relatively little research is underway. Social science on shale energy development seems to have been recently concerned with documenting variation in resident attitudes and confirming or not-confirming the boomtown social conditions of the 1970s and 1980s. However, such findings will do little to identify or reduce the risk of adverse long-term social and economic impacts to these communities. Such socioeconomic research that is undertaken in shale energy communities should be designed for repeated, longitudinal, data collection and analysis. However, as presented here, there should also be a renewed analysis of the roads previously traveled by communities faced with real or perceived technological hazards and environmental change. Many of these cases have been ongoing for decades and may yield answers that are applicable now to lessen the risk of adverse impacts to shale energy communities.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: Jeff[email protected]. Phone: 605-688-5729. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Considine, T. J., Watson, R. and Blumsack, S. The Economic Impacts of the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play: An Update; The Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of Energy and Mineral Engineering: University Park, PA, 2007; http:// marcelluscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PA-MarcellusUpdated-Economic-Impacts-5.24.10.3.pdf. (2) Kelsey, T., Shields, M., Ladlee, J. R., Ward, M. Economic Impacts of Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania: Employment and Income in 2009; 8329



Critical Review

(47) Smith, M. D.; Krannich, R. S. “Culture Clash” Revisited: Newcomer and Longer-Term Residents’ Attitudes toward Land Use, Development, and Environmental Issues in Rural Communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociol. 2000, 65, 396−421. (48) Salamon, S. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization of the Heartland; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2003. (49) Jobes, P. C. The Disintegration of Gemeinschaft Social Structure from Energy Development: Observations from Ranch Communities in the Western United States. J. Rural Stud. 1987, 3, 219−229. (50) Freudenburg, W. The Impacts of Growth on the Social and Personal Well-Being of Local Community Residents. In Coping With Rapid Growth in Rural Communities;Weber, B., Howell, R., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1982. (51) Freudenburg, W. R. The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research? Am. J. Sociol. 1986, 92, 27−63. (52) Parkins, J. R.; Angell, A. C. Linking Social Structure, Fragmentation and Substance Abuse in a Resource-Based Community. Community, Work Family 2011, 14, 39−55. (53) Durkheim, E. On the Division of Labor in Society; Simpson, G., Trans.; The Macmillan Company: New York, 1933. (54) Putz, A.; Finken, A.; Goreham, G.A. Sustainability in Natural Resource-Dependent Regions That Experienced Boom−Bust−Recovery Cycles: Lessons Learned from a Review of the Literature, Center for Community Vitality Working Paper; North Dakota State University Extension Service: Fargo, ND, 2011. (55) Bohnenkamp, S. Concerns of the North Dakota Bakken Oil Counties: Extension Service and Other Organizations’ Program Responses to These Concerns; Center for Community Vitality, NDSU Extension Service: Fargo, ND, 2011. (56) Wenzel, C. A Case StudyHydraulic Fracturing Geography: The Case of the Eagle Ford Shale, TX, USA, Thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, 2012. (57) Schafft, K. A.; Borlu, Y.; Glenna, L. The Relationship between Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania and Local Perceptions of Risk and Opportunity. Rural Sociol. 2013, DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12004. (58) Park, M.; Stokowski, P. A. Casino Gaming and Crime: Comparisons among Gaming Counties and other Tourism Places. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 289−302. (59) Broadway, M. Meatpacking and the Transformation of Rural Communities: A Comparison of Brooks, Alberta, and Garden City, Kansas. Rural Sociol. 2007, 72, 560−582. (60) Vong, F. Changes in Residents’ Gambling Attitudes and Perceived Impacts at the Fifth Anniversary of Macao’s Gaming Deregulation. J. Travel Res. 2009, 47, 388−397. (61) Perdue, R. R.; Long, P. T.; Kang, Y. S. Boomtown Tourism and Resident Quality of Life: The Marketing of Gaming to Host Community Residents. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 44, 165−177. (62) Brasier, K. J.; Filteau, M. R.; McLaughlin, D. K.; Jacquet, J.; Stedman, R. C. Residents’ Perceptions of Community and Environmental Impacts From Development of Natural Gas in the Marcellus Shale: A Comparison of Pennsylvania and New York Cases. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2011, 26, 32−61. (63) Anderson, B. J.; Theodori, G. L. Local Leader’s Perceptions of Energy Development in the Barnett Shale. South. Rural Sociol. 2009, 24, 113−129. (64) Jacquet, J. B; Stedman, R. C. Perceived impacts from wind and natural gas development in Northern Pennsylvania. Rural Sociol. 2013, DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12022. (65) Ruddell, R. Boomtown Policing: Responding to the Dark Side of Resource Development. Policing 2011, DOI: 10.1093/police/ par034. (66) Lawrie, M.; Tonts, M.; Plummer, P. Boomtowns, Resource Dependence and Socio-Economic Well-Being. Aust. Geogr. 2011, 42, 139−164. (67) Freudenburg, W. R. Evidence and Assertions in Assessing Human Factors. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 25, 635−636.

(23) Lyson, T. A., Falk, W. W., Eds.; Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America; University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, 1993. (24) Freudenburg, W. R.; Wilson, L. J. Mining the Data: Analyzing the Economic Implications of Mining for Nonmetropolitan Regions. Sociol. Inquiry 2002, 72, 549−575. (25) Humphreys, M.; Sachs, J.; Stiglitz, J. Escaping the Resource Curse; Columbia University Press: New York, 2007. (26) Rosser, A. The Political Economy of the Resource Curse: A Literature Survey, Working Paper 268; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, U.K., 2006; http://www2.ids.ac.uk/gdr/cfs/pdfs/ wp268.pdf (accessed 05/14/2013). (27) James, A.; Aadland, D. The Curse of Natural Resources: An Empirical Investigation of U.S. Counties. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 440−453. (28) Papyrakis, E.; Gerlagh, R. Working Papers 2004, 62, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy, 2006. (29) Fisher, D. R. Resource Dependency and Rural Poverty: Rural Areas in the United States and Japan. Rural Sociol. 2001, 66, 181−202. (30) Jacquet, J. Energy Boomtowns and Natural Gas: Implications for Marcellus Shale Local Governments and Rural Communities; The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development Working paper No. 43; The Pennsylvania State University; State College, PA, 2009; http://nercrd.psu.edu/Publications/rdppapers/rdp43.pdf. (31) Murdock, S. H.; Leistritz. F. L. Energy Development in the Western United States; Praeger Publishers, Inc.: New York, 1979. (32) Myhra, D. Energy Plant Sites: Community Planning for Large Projects; Conway Publications: Norcross, GA, 1980. (33) Gilmore, J. S. Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Resource Development: Isolated Rural Communities Cannot Handle Sudden Industrialization and Growth without Help. Science 1976, 191, 535− 540. (34) O’Hare, M.; Sanderson, D. R. Fair Compensation and the Boomtown Problem. Urban Law J. 1977, 14, 101−133. (35) Markusen, A. Socioeconomic Impact Models for Boomtown Planning and Policy Evaluation, Presented at the Western Regional Science Association Meetings 25, February, 1978. (36) England, J. L; Albrecht, S. L. Boomtowns and Social Disruption. Rural Sociol. 1984, 49, 230−246. (37) Marchand, J.. Local Labor Market Impacts of Energy Boom− Bust−Boom in Western Canada. J. Urban Econ. 2012, 71, 165−174. (38) Brown, R. B.; Dorius, S. F.; Krannich, R.S.. The Boom−Bust− Recovery Cycle: Dynamics of Change in Community Satisfaction and Social Integration in Delta, Utah. Rural Sociol. 2005, 70, 28−49. (39) Gilmore, J. S.; Duff, M. K. Boom Town Growth Management. A Case Study of Rock Springs-Green River, Wyoming; Westview: Boulder, CO, 1975. (40) Gilmore, J. S.; Flory, D. K.; Hammond, D. M.; Moore, K. D.; Coddington, D. C. Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation Mechanisms in Six States: Categories, Generalizations, and Unresolved Issues; Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation, Energy Research and Development Administration: Washington, D.C., 1977. (41) Zinn, J.; Davis, D. H. Energy Impact Assistance Legislation Issue Brief Number IB79022; The Library of Congress Congressional Research Service: Washington, D.C., 1979. (42) Markusen, A. R. and Glasmeier, A. The Case Against Boomtown Aid, Working Paper 296; Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California: Berkley, CA, 1980. (43) Maher, C. Impact Fees Fracture Pennsylvania. Wall Street Journal. Published online April 28, 2013. (44) Wilkinson, K. P.; Thompson, J. G.; Reynolds, R. R., Jr.; Ostresh, L. M. Local Social Disruption and Western Energy Development: A Critical Review. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1982, 25, 275−296. (45) Thompson, J. G. Gillette Syndrome: Myth or Reality. Wyo. Issues 1974, 2 (2), 30−35. (46) Freudenburg, W. The Social Impact of Energy Boom Development on Rural Communities: A Review of Literatures and Some Predictions, Presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, New York City, 1976. 8330



Critical Review

(68) Seyfrit, C. L. A Need for Post-Impact and Policy Studies: The Case of the “Shetland Experience”. Sociol. Inquiry 1988, 58, 206−212. (69) Jacquet, J.; Stedman, R. C. Natural Gas Landowner Coalitions in New York State: Emerging Benefits of Collective Natural Resource Management. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2011, 26, 62−91. (70) Macke, D.; Markley, D.; Binerer, A. The Transfer of Wealth in Rural America: Understanding the Potential, Realizing the Opportunity, and Creating Wealth for the Future; The Center for Rural Entrepreneurship: Lincoln, NE, 2012. (71) CensusScope. Preliminary Results from Census 2010, 2012. http://censusscope.org/dev/content/preliminary-results-census-2010 (accessed 10/03/13). (72) Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Best Management PracticesSplit Estate. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/ st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/split_ estate.html (accessed 05/13/2013). (73) Jacquet, J. B. Landowner Attitudes toward Natural Gas and Wind Farm Development in Northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 2012, 50, 677−688. (74) Mergen, A. C. Surface Tension: The Problem of Federal/Private Split Estate Lands. Land Water Legal Rev. 1998, 33, 419. (75) Mullins, L. The Equity Illusion of Surface Ownership in Coalbed Methane Gas; The Rise of Mutual Simultaneous Rights in Mineral Law and The Resulting Need for Dispute Resolution in Split Estate Relations. Mo. Environ. Law Policy Rev. 2009, 16, 109. (76) Tompkins County Council Of Governments (TCCOG). Gas and Oil Leases as they relate to Residential Lending, 2011. http:// www.tompkins-co.org/tccog/gas_drilling/Focus_Groups/ Assessment%20Documents/WhitepaperREVISED%2011-1511%20Gas%20and%20Oil%20Leases%20Residential%20Lending.pdf. (77) Radrow, E. Homeowners and Gas Drilling Leases: Boon or Bust? N. Y. State Bar Assoc. J. 2011, 83, 9. (78) Pender, J.; Marré, A.; Reeder, R. (USDA) Rural Wealth Creation: Concepts, Strategies, and Measures. http://www.rurdev. usda.gov/Reports/rd-ERR131.pdf (accessed 5/20/2013). (79) Miller, R.; Blair, P. Input−Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2009. (80) ORC. Drought, Water, and Energy: A National Survey of Attitudes Conducted for Civil Society Institute August 16, 2012. http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/ 081612%20CSI%20drought%20energy%20survey%20findings%20FI NAL2.pdf (accessed 05/13/2013). (81) Boudet, H.; Clarke, C.; Bugdend, D.; Maibach, E.; Leiserowitz, A. “Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing. Energy Policy 2014, in press. (82) Clarke, C.; Boudet, H.; Bugden, D. “Fracking” in the American Mind: American’s Views on Hydraulic Fracturing in September 2012; George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication: Fairfax, VA, 2013; http://www.climatechangecommunication. org/report/%E2%80%9Cfracking%E2%80%9D-american-mindamericans%E2%80%99-views-hydraulic-fracturing-september-2012. (83) Kriesky, J.; Goldstein, B. D.; Zell, K.; Beach, S. Differing Opinions about Natural Gas Drilling in Two Adjacent Counties with Different Levels of Drilling Activity. Energy Policy 2013, 58, 228−236. (84) Theodori, G. L. Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional Natural Gas Development. South. Rural Sociol. 2009, 24, 97−117. (85) Christopherson, S.; Frickey, C.; Rightor, N. A Vote of No Confidence: Why Local Governments Take Action in Response to Shale Gas Development. Policy brief. CaRDI Research and Policy Brief Series, 2013, 54, 1−2. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Community and Regional Development Institute. http://www.greenchoices.cornell. edu/. (86) Shriver, T. E.; Kennedy, D. K. Contested Environmental Hazards and Community Conflict Over Relocation. Rural Sociol. 2005, 70, 491−513.

(87) Freudenburg, W. R.; Jones, T. R. Attitudes and Stress in the Presence of Technological Risk: A Test of the Supreme Court Hypothesis. Social Forces 1991, 69, 1143−1168. (88) Freudenburg, W. R.. Contamination, Corrosion, and the Social Order: An Overview. Curr. Sociol. 1997, 45, 19−40. (89) Summers, G.; Branch, K. Economic Development and Community Social Change. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1984, 10, 141−166. (90) Lovejoy, S. B.; Little, R. L. Energy Development and Local Employment. Soc. Sci. J. 1979, 16 (2), 169−190. (91) Brasier, K. J.; McLaughlin, D. K.; Rhubart, D.; Stedman, R. C.; Filteau, M. R.; Jacquet, J. Risk Perceptions of Natural Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale. Environ. Pract. 2013, 15 (2), 108−122. (92) Ferrar, K. J.; Kriesky, J. K.; Christen, C. L.; Marshall, L. P.; Malone, S. L.; Sharma, R. K.; Michanowicz, D. R.; Goldstein, B. D. Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2013, DOI: 10.1179/2049396713Y.0000000024. (93) Goldstein, B. D.; Bjerke, E. F.; Kriesky, J. K. Challenges of unconventional shale gas development: so what’s the rush? Notre Dame J. Law Ethics Pub. Pol. 2013, 27, 149. (94) Goffman, E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1963. (95) Omohundro, E. Living in a Contaminated World: Community Structures, Environmental Risks and Decision Frameworks; Ashgate: Burlington, VT, 2004. (96) Broto, V. C.; Burningham, K.; Carter, C.; Elghali, L.. Stigma and Attachment: Performance of Identity in an Environmentally Degraded Place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 952−968. (97) Hayden, K. E. Stigma and Place: Space, Community, and the Politics of Reputation. In Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 23; Denzin, N. K., Ed.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, U.K., 2000; pp. 219−239. (98) Hunter, L. M.; Sutton, J. Examining the Association between Hazardous Waste Facilities and Rural “Brain Drain”. Rural Sociol. 2004, 69, 197−212. (99) Elliott, S. J.; Taylor, S. M. Worrying about Waste: Diagnosis and Prescription. In Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice; Munton, D., Ed.: Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (100) Gregory, R. S.; Satterfield, T. A. Beyond Perception: The Experience of Risk and Stigma in Community Contexts. Risk Anal. 2002, 22, 347−358. (101) Dayton, K. Mead Proposes Water Solution. Casper StarTribune, February 6th, 2012. (102) Edelstein, M. R. Contaminated Communities: The Social− Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure; Westview Press: London, 1988. (103) Lober, D. J. Beyond Self-Interest: A Model of Public Attitudes Towards Waste Facility Siting. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 1993, 36 (3), 345−363. (104) Baxter, J.; Eyles, J.; Elliott, S. “Something Happened”: The Relevance of the Risk Society for Describing the Siting Process for a Municipal Landfill. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B, Human Geogr. 1999, 81, 91− 109. (105) Wheatley, M. Social and Cultural Impacts of Mercury Pollution on Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 1997, 97, 85− 90. (106) McGregor, G. I. Contamination: The Kiss of Death for a Real Estate Deal? Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 6−9. (107) Sovacool, B. K. The Costs of Failure: A Preliminary Assessment of Major Energy Accidents, 1907−2007. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 1807. (108) Rowan, G. T.; Fridgen, C.. Brownfields and Environmental Justice: The Threats and Challenges of Contamination. Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 58−61. 8331



Critical Review

(109) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brownfields and Land Revitalization. http://www.epa.gov/ brownfields/index.html (accessed 10/14/2013). (110) Witter, R.; McKenzie, L.; Towle, M.; Stinson, K.; Scott, K.; Newman, L.; Adgate, J. Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado; University of Colorado Denver, Colorado School of Public Health: Denver, CO, 2010. (111) Bain, C.; Selfa, T. Framing and Reframing the Environmental Risks and Economic Benefits of Ethanol Production in Iowa. Agric. Hum. Values 2013, 30, 351−364. (112) Dyer, J. F.; Singh, B.; Bailey, C. Differing Perspectives on Biofuels: Analysis of National, Regional and State Newspaper Coverage. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2013, 28, 118−140. (113) Colborn, T.; Kwiatkowski, C.; Schultz, K.; Bachran, M. Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2011, 17, 1039−56. (114) Gustafson, P. Meanings of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical Conceptualizations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 5−16. (115) Giuliani, M. V. Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues; Bonnes, M.; Lee, T.; Bonaiuto, M., Eds.; Ashgate: Burlington, VT, 2003. (116) Picou, J. S.; Gill, D. A.; Dyer, C. L.; Curry, E. W. Disruption and Stress in an Alaskan Fishing Community: Initial and Continuing Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Ind. Crisis Q. 1992, 6, 235−57. (117) Arata, C. M.; J. S. Picou, J.. Coping with Technological Disaster: An Application of the Conservation of Resources Model to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. J. Trauma. Stress 2000, 13, 23−39. (118) Palinkas, L. A.; Patterson, J. S.; Russell, J.; Downs, M. A. Community Patterns of Psychiatric Disorders after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Am. J. Psychiatry 1993, 150, 1517−1523. (119) Palinkas, L A.; Downs, M. A.; Petterson, J. S.; Russell, J. Social, Cultural, and Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Hum. Organ. 1993, 52, 1−12. (120) Bougsty, T.; Marshall, P.; Chavez, E. Prevalence and Prevention of Mental Health Problems in an Energy-Affected Community. Adm. Ment. Health 1983, 10 (4), 272−287. (121) Weisz, R. Stress and Mental Health in a Boom Town. In Boom Towns and Human Services; Davenport, J.; Davenport, J., II, Eds.; Department of Social Work, University of Wyoming: Laramie, WY, 1979. (122) Bacigalupi, L. M.; Freudenberg, W. R. Increased Mental Health Caseloads in an Energy Boomtown. Adm. Ment. Health 1983, 10, 306− 322. (123) Kassover, J.; McKeown, R. L. Resource Development, Rural Communities and Rapid Growth: Managing Social Change in the Modern Boomtown. Miner. Environ. 1981, 3, 47−54. (124) Kriesky, J. Socioeconomic Change and Human Stress Associated with Shale Gas Extraction. Physicians for Social Responsibility, Environmental Health Policy Institute, 2012. http:// bit.ly/SXaHjD. (125) Kasperson, R. E.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H. S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Kasperson, J. X.; Ratick, S.. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Anal. 1988, 8, 177−187. (126) Chapman, S., St. George, A., Waller, K. Spatio-Temporal Differences in the History of Health and Noise Complaints about Australian Wind Farms: Evidence for the Psychogenic, “Communicated Disease” Hypothesis. Pre-print. Sydney School of Public Health. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8977/4/ Complaints%20FINAL.pdf. (127) Breakwell, G. Threatened Identities; Wiley: Chichester, U.K., 1983. (128) Breakwell, G. Coping with Threatened Identities; Methuen: London, U.K., 1986. (129) Twigger-Ross, C. L.; Uzzel, D. L. Place and Identity Process. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16, 205−220. (130) Stedman, R. C. Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 561−581.

(131) Devine-Wright, P. Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 441, 426−441. (132) Devine-Wright, P.; Howes, Y. Disruption to Place Attachment and the Protection of Restorative Environments: A Wind Energy Case Study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 271−280. (133) Kay, D. L.; Pratt, J. E.; Warner, M. E. Role of Services in Regional Economy Growth. Growth Change 2007, 38, 419−442. (134) Kay, D. The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling: What Have We Learned? What are the Limitations? Working Paper Series, A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis Of Natural Gas Extraction In The Marcellus Shale; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, 2011; http:// www.greenchoices.cornell.edu/downloads/ development/marcellus/Marcellus_Kay.pdf. (135) Ford Foundation Website. www.creatingruralwealth.org (accessed 04/24/2013). (136) Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI). Wealth in Selected Foundation Areas in New York A Transfer of Wealth Opportunity, Technical Report; Center for Rural Entrepreneurship Technical Report, RUPRI: Lincoln, NE, 2011; www.cftompkins.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/FinalTechnicalReport_NY-FINAL-FINAL. pdf. (137) Nebraska Community Foundation (NCF). Transfer of Wealth Report; Nebraska Community Foundation: Lincoln, NE, 2012; http:// www.nebcommfound.org/media/docs/2011_Transfer_of_Wealth_ Report__2012-March.pdf. (138) Kelsey, T. W.; Hartman, W.; Schafft, K. A.; Borlu, Y.; Costanzo, C. “Marcellus Shale Gas Development and Pennsylvania School Districts: What Are the Implications for School Expenditures and Tax Revenues?; Penn State Cooperative Extension: State College, PA, 2012. (139) Kelsey, T. W.; Adams, R.; Milchak, S. Real Property Tax Base, Market Values, and Marcellus Shale: 2007 to 2009, Center for Economic and Community Development White Paper Series; Penn State University: University Park, PA. 2012. (140) Kelsey, T. W., Metcalf, A., and Salcedo, R. Marcellus Shale: Land Ownership, Local Voice, and the Distribution of Lease and Royalty Dollars, Center for Economic and Community Development White Paper Series; Penn State University: University Park, PA: 2012. (141) Costanzo, C.; Kelsey, T. W. Marcellus Shale and Local Collection of State Taxes: What the 2011 Pennsylvania Tax Data Say, Center for Economic and Community Development White Paper Series; Penn State University: University Park, PA, 2012. (142) Christopherson, S. The Economic Consequences of Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction: Key Issues, A Research Project sponsored by the Cornell; University Department of City & Regional Planning: Ithaca, NY, 2011; http://www.greenchoices.cornell.edu/downloads/ development/marcellus/Marcellus_CaRDI.pdf. (143) Adams, R.; Kelsey, T. W. Pennsylvania Dairy Farms and Marcellus Shale, 2007−2010, Penn State Cooperative Extension Marcellus Education Fact Sheet; Penn State Cooperative Extension: State College, PA, 2012. (144) Wester-Herber, M. Underlying Concerns in Land-Use ConflictsThe Role of Place-Identity in Risk Perception. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7, 109−116. (145) Picou, J. S. and Martin, C. G. Long-Term Community Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Patterns of Social Disruption and Psychological Stress Seventeen Years after the Disaster, Final Report submitted to the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Research; National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Research: Arlington, VA, 2007; http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/B/243478793. pdf. (146) Palinkas, L. A.; Harris, B. M.; Petterson, J. S. A Systems Approach to Social Impact Assessment: Two Alaskan Case Studies; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1985. (147) Wernstedt, K.; Meyer, P. B.; Alberini, A. Attracting Private Investment to Contaminated Properties: The Value of Public Interventions. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 2006, 25 (2), 247−369. 8332



Critical Review

(148) Dorsey, J. W. Brownfields and Greenfields: The Intersection of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship. Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 69−76. (149) Albrecht, S. L.; Amey, R. G.; Amir, S. The Siting of Radioactive Waste Facilities: What Are the Effects on Communities? Rural Sociol. 1996, 61, 649−673. (150) Verhovek, S. H. After 10 years, the Trauma of Love Canal Continues. New York Times, August 5th, 1988. (151) Carroll, M. S.; Higgins, L. L.; Cohn, P. J.; Burchfield, J. Community Wildfire Events as a Source of Social Conflict. Rural Sociol. 2006, 71, 261−280. (152) Picou, J. S.; Marshall, B. K.; Gill, D. A. Disaster, Litigation, and the Corrosive Community. Soc. Forces 2004, 82, 1493−1522. (153) Ladlee, J.; Jacquet, J. Implications of Multi-Well Pad Development in the Marcellus Shale. Cornell Univ. Community .Rural Dev. Inst. Res. Policy Brief 2011, 43, 1−2. (154) Rathan, D. JVs FOR E&P, Oil and Gas Investor, 2009. http:// www.tudorpickering.com/Websites/tudorpickering/Images/ News%202009/JVs.FOR.EP.pdf. (155) Berman, A. E. After the Gold Rush: A Perspective on Future U.S. Natural Gas Supply and Price. Oil Drum 2012, No. 8914, http:// www.theoildrum.com/node/8914. (156) Stafford, J. Shale Gas Will be the Next Bubble to PopAn Interview with Arthur Berman, OilPrice.Com, 2012. http://oilprice. com/Interviews/Shale-Gas-Will-be-the-Next-Bubble-to-Pop-AnInterview-with-Arthur-Berman.html. (157) Kelly-Detwiler, P. Driven by Oil Shale Economics, Natural Gas Prices Primed for Slow and Steady Rise, 2012. http://www.forbes. com/sites/peterdetwiler/2012/12/03/driven-by-oil-shale-economicsnatural-gas-prices-primed-for-slow-and-steady-rise/.

8333


Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Energy Development

Recommend Documents