Mitigating Mistrust? Participation and Expertise in Hydraulic Fracturing Governance

Bibliographic Data

ID4074543
AuthorsKate J Neville (0000-0003-2302-3769, University of Toronto), Erika Weinthal (0000-0003-4117-6048, Duke University)
Year2016
Volume33
Issue6
Pages578-602
Publication date2016-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueReview of Policy Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1541-132X • E-ISSN: 1541-1338
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/ropr.12201
OpenAlexW2547859870
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited48

In Canada's Yukon Territory, a legislative committee was tasked with assessing the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing. The committee designed an extensive participatory process involving citizens and experts; however, instead of information access and public hearings fostering an open dialogue and trust, these two channels failed to de-polarize debates over hydraulic fracturing. We argue that mistrust was reinforced because (1) weak participatory processes undermined the goals of public involvement, (2) scientific evidence and scientists themselves were not accepted as neutral or apolitical, and (3) strategic fostering of mistrust by actors on both sides of a polarized issue intensified existing doubt about the integrity and credibility of the process. The implications of a failure to restore trust in government are significant, not only for the issue of hydraulic fracturing, but for governance more broadly, as mistrust has spillover effects for subsequent public negotiations

Business · Citizen journalism · Corporate governance · Credibility · Economics · Hydraulic fracturing · Legislature · Negotiation · Political science · Public participation · Public relations · Public trust · Spillover effect · Uncertainty · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Engineering · Law · Public Administration · Risk Perception and Management · Finance

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access