Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:53:47.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Show Me: Engaging Citizens in Planning for Shale Gas Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2015

Brian Orland  and
Timothy Murtha
Brian Orland*
Affiliation:
Rado Family Foundation/UGAF Professor of Geodesign, College of Environment+Design, The University of Georgia
Timothy Murtha
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, Department of Landscape Architecture, The Pennsylvania State University
*
*Address corresponding to: Brian Orland, 285 South Jackson Street, Athens, GA 30605, USA, Tel: +1 706 542 0709, Fax: +1 706 542 4485, borland@uga.edu
Get access

Abstract

Shale gas development brings substantial and long-term change to rural landscapes, change that most citizens recognize by what they see—heavier traffic on the highway, pipeline right-of-ways at the skyline, and what they experience as a result of lost forest cover—fewer songbirds at the feeder, cloudier streams when it rains. This paper focuses on facilitating citizens’ ability to participate in the design and planning of large-scale changes to the landscape. In the absence of clear federal or state oversight, the leasing choices of individual citizen landowners and the gas industry are the land planning instruments affecting shale gas development. For citizen landowners, the visual consequences of change may be key to determining what is acceptable or unacceptable development. In a series of studies, the authors projected the areal land-use change resulting from access roads and pipelines that would be needed to support projections of gas development in North-eastern Pennsylvania. The authors identified planning scenarios derived from those projections and represented them as photo-renderings and GIS-based informational graphics. The TR-55 runoff calculator was used to estimate the impact on downstream flooding and a regression model of perceived visual quality to assess visual impacts and also represented these outputs graphically. All of these products were used in land-use planning workshops for citizens enrolled in a Community Science Volunteer program for informal science education of adults. This paper examines the evaluations of participants in the programs including citizens’ acquisition of new knowledge about land planning, their comprehension of planning principles, and their feelings of empowerment to engage in community and county-wide planning. While the number of respondents is restricted to the limited numbers attending community events, in all cases responses indicate the usefulness of our extensive use of visual representation and visual evaluation in interpreting land-use planning options available to citizens in these highly contested land-use scenarios.

Environmental Practice 17: 245–255 (2015)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 245 - 255
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahams, L.S., Griffin, W. Michael, and Matthews, H. Scott 2015. Assessment of Policies to Reduce Core Forest Fragmentation from Marcellus Shale Development in Pennsylvania. Ecological Indicators 52:153–160.Google Scholar
Anderson, B.J., and Theodori, G.L. 2009. Local Leaders’ Perceptions of Energy Development in the Barnett Shale. Southern Rural Sociology 24(1):113–129.Google Scholar
Andrews, E., and McCarthy, J. 2014. Scale, shale, and the state: Political ecologies and legal geographies of shale gas development in Pennsylvania. J Environ Stud Sci (2014) 4:7–16. doi:10.1007/s13412-013-0146-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balassiano, K. 2011. Tackling “wicked problems” in planning studio courses. J Planning Ed Res 31(4):449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, R., and Higgs, G. 2012. Gauging levels of public acceptance of the use of visualization tools in promoting public participation; a case study of wind farm planning in South Wales, UK. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(2):229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasier, K.J., McLaughlin, D.K., Rhubart, D., Stedman, R.C., and Filteau, M.R. 2013. Risk Perceptions of Natural Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale. Environmental Practice 15(2):108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittingham, M.C., Maloney, K.O., Farag, A.M., Harper, D.D., and Bowen., Z.H. 2014. Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to wildlife, aquatic resources and their habitats. Environmental Science & Technology 48(19):11034–11047.Google Scholar
Chase, L., Boumans, R., and Morse, S. 2010. Participatory modeling as a tool for community development planning: Tourism in the Northern Forest. Community Development 41(3):385–397. doi:10.1080/15575330903477283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePasquale, E.A. 2014. DEP’s performance in monitoring potential impacts to water quality from shale gas development, 2009–2012. Department of the Auditor General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA. Available at http://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/speDEP072114.pdf.Google Scholar
Dong, E., Wang, Y., Morais, D., and Brooks, D. 2013. Segmenting the rural tourism market. The case of Potter County, Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Vacation Marketing 19(2):181–193. doi:10.1177/1356766712471231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drohan, P.J., and Brittingham, M. 2012. Topographic and Soil Constraints to Shale-Gas Development in the Northcentral Appalachians. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76:1696–1706. doi:10.2136/sssaj2012.0087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drohan, P.J., Finley, J.C., Roth, P., Schuler, T.M., Stout, S.L., Brittingham, M.C., and Johnson, N.C. 2012. Oil and Gas Impacts on Forest Ecosystems. Environmental Practice 14(4). doi:10.10170S1466046612000300.Google Scholar
EIA. 2014. Annual Energy Outlook 2014. US Energy Information Agency, DOE/EIA-0383ER(2014). Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf (accessed March, 21, 2015).Google Scholar
EPA. 2012. Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. EPA 601/R-12/011. US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Energy Policy Act of 2005. 2005. 109th Congress Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/html/PLAW-109publ58.htm.Google Scholar
Gilmore, J. S. 1976. Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Resource Development: Isolated Rural Communities Cannot Handle Sudden Industrialization and Growth without Help. Science 191(4227):535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. 2010. Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. Report 1: Marcellus Shale natural gas and wind. The Nature Conservancy, Harrisburg. Available at http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/tnc_energy_analysis.pdf (accessed February 7, 2014).Google Scholar
Kiviat, E. 2013. Risks to biodiversity from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shales. Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1286:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oil and Gas Accountability Project. 2011. The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes. Earthworks. Available at http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_petroleumexemptions.pdf (accessed February 7, 2014).Google Scholar
PA Act 13. 2012. Act 13: An Act, Amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, 2012 P.L. 87, No. 13, CL. 58. Available at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/2012/0/0013..HTM (accessed September 18, 2015).Google Scholar
Perry, M.J. 2012. Updates on America’s booming energy sector. American Energy Ideas blog. American Enterprise Institute. Available at http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/updates-on-americas-booming-energy-sector/ (accessed February 7, 2014).Google Scholar
Pettit, C., Bishop, I., Sposito, V., Aurambout, J., and Sheth, F. 2012. Developing a multi-scale visualisation framework for use in climate change response. Landscape Ecology 27:487–508. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9716-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickell, P.D., Gergel, S.E., Coops, N.C., and Andison, D.W. 2014. Monitoring Forest Change in Landscapes Under-Going Rapid Energy Development: Challenges and New Perspectives. Land 3:617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, N., Gottlieb, M., Krupnick, A., and Wiseman, H. 2013. The State of State Regulation. Resources for the Future (RFF). Washington, DC. Available at http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-StateofStateRegs_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Shafer, E.L., and Brush, R.O. 1977. How to Measure Preferences for Photographs of Natural Landscapes. Landscape Planning 4:237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shale Gas Production Subcommittee. 2011. Second Ninety Day Report. US Department of Energy. Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/90day_Report_Second_11.18.11.pdf (accessed February 7, 2014).Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. 2005. Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behavior. Environmental Science & Policy 8:637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smil, V. 2010. Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects, ABC-CLIO. Praeger, Santa Barbara, 178 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Tech. Release 55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/home/?cid=stelprdb1042901 (accessed March 25, 2015).Google Scholar
StateImpact. 2014. The Oil and Gas Law of the Land: Your Guide to Act 13. StateImpact, National Public Radio. Available at http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/impact-fee/ (accessed February 7, 2015).Google Scholar
Swackhamer, E., and Kiernan, N.E. 2005. A Multipurpose Evaluation Strategy for Master Gardener Training Programs. Journal of Extension 43(6). Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/a4.php (accessed February 7, 2015).Google Scholar