Accepted Manuscript

Environmental justice and fracking: a review

Emily Clough

PII: S2468-5844(17)30047-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.005
Reference: COESH 26

To appear in: Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health

Received Date: 17 December 2017

Revised Date: 14 February 2018
Accepted Date: 28 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Clough E, Environmental justice and fracking: a review, Current Opinion in
Environmental Science & Health (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.005.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Environmental justice and fracking: a review

Emily Clough
Newcastle University
emily.clough@ncl.ac.uk
Politics Department
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU

PT
United Kingdom

Abstract

RI
Extensive research over the last five years has demonstrated that those who live near

SC
hydraulic fracturing wells and their associated infrastructure are at risk of a variety of health
problems. Along with knowledge of these risks comes the ethical question of who is bearing
these risks and how decisions are made about who bears the risks. This article reviews how
environmental justice scholars have addressed the ethical concerns raised by the fracking

U
boom. It draws out how this work relates to the three main types of environmental justice:
distributive, procedural and recognition-based environmental justice.
AN
Highlights
M

Risks from hydraulic fracturing means scholars must consider the ethics of fracking
Environmental justice provides a way to consider the ethical dimensions of fracking
Distributive environmental justice looks at who bears the risks of living near wells
D

Procedural environmental justice considers who participates in decisions about wells

Recognition examines whether all stakeholders are recognised as legitimate
TE

Keywords
EP

fracking; hydraulic fracturing; environmental justice; distributive justice; procedural justice

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
C

commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing has documented negative impacts for those who live near wells. A
recent systematic review found that “84% of public health studies contain findings that
indicate public health hazards, elevated risks, or adverse health outcomes; 69% of water
quality studies contain findings that indicate potential, positive association, or actual
incidence of water contamination; and 87% of air quality studies contain findings that
indicate elevated air pollutant emissions and/or atmospheric concentrations.” [1] As the
negative exernalities of fracking have become clearer, scholars have started to suggest the
importance of considering the ethical dimension of fracking [1–9]. Policymakers need to

PT
take account of the moral and ethical dimensions of shale gas development when making
policy decisions [8]. At present, the normative claims regarding shale gas development
remain implicit, and thus are not subject to rigorous debate[8].

RI
Environmental justice is one normative approach to studying fracking that has received

SC
increasing attention in recent years. Environmental justice as a normative approach was
developed to examine whether environmentally hazardous facilities were more likely teo be
placed in near neighbourhoods with high numbers of minorities [10]. As the work in
environmental justice has grown, the definition has both expanded and become more

U
sharply drawn, focusing on three different aspects of justice, as laid out in Figure 1:
distributional, procedural and recognition [11]. Distributional environmental justice focuses
AN
on the original concerns of environmental justice scholars and campaigners, examining who
bears the brunt of hazardous facilities. The results of these studies have often found that
such facilities are often placed in disadvantaged communities, and that poor and ethnic
M

minority citizens must deal with the negative health and economic consequences which
accompany this. Procedural environmental justice focuses on access to the decision-making
process around the siting of potentially environmentally hazardous facilities. Procedurally
D

just systems include open and participatory decision making processes that allow all
stakeholders a chance to participate [12]. Related to procedural environmental justice is
TE

environmental justice as recognition [11,13]. Allowing space for stakeholders to participate

in decisions was not enough; stakeholders must be recognized as having a legitimate seat at
the table, and their attitudes and approaches respected.
EP

This review examines how scholars have explored each of these three approaches to
environmental justice with respect to hydraulic fracturing. It focuses on empirical case
C

studies that have taken place in the United States and United Kingdom. These cases allow
us to see how issues around environmental justice and fracking have developed in two
AC

different institutional contexts.

2. Distributive environmental justice and fracking

Distributive environmental justice concerns the question of who bears the negative impacts
of environmentally hazardous facilities. Studies of distributive environmental justice with
respect to fracking have focused on case studies from the United States, where hydraulic
fracturing is most developed. Thus far, evidence of distributive environmental injustice with
respect to fracking has been mixed.

Empirical work on distributive environmental justice in America has focused on areas above
three shales: the Marcellus shale, which lies primarily under Pennsylvania; the Eagle Fork
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
shale, which lies over an area of south Texas starting on the Mexican border north of Laredo
and stretching northwest to the area around College Station; and the Barnett shale, which
lies under and around the Dallas/Ft Worth metro region. It is worth noting the profound
differences between these three areas: the part of Pennsylvania over the Marcellus is
largely rural, with relatively high poverty levels and a largely white population; the part of
Texas over the Eagle Ford shale is rural, with high variation poverty levels and a much more
ethnically diverse population; the part of Texas over the Barnett shale is largely urban and
suburban, with low relative levels of poverty and high ethnic diversity.

PT
Empirical studies of distributive environmental justice often use geographical data,
especially block group level data from the US census, to examine the neighbourhoods
around environmentally hazardous facilities such as fracking wells. Ogneva-Himmelberger

RI
and Huang [•14] focus on whether unconventional wells in the Marcellus shale region,
covering parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, are disproportionately located in

SC
areas with large minority or low-income populations. They find no evidence of this form of
environmental injustice in West Virginia or Ohio. In Pennsylvania, they find evidence that
unconventional gas wells are disproportionately located in areas with larger populations
living in poverty but they find no evidence of race-based environmental injustice.

U
Traditionally, studies of environmental justice have focused on urban areas; but fracking
AN
occurs in rural or suburban neighbourhoods. Clough and Bell [•15] further the work of [•14]
by shifting the methods used to better reflect the rural communities where these wells are
placed. In most studies of environmental justice, scholars use census block group or tract
M

level data assume the population of the tracts is evenly spread. This is a reasonable
assumption in studies that focus on urban areas, where tracts are geographically small and
densely populated, but in rural and urban areas block group and census tracts are often
D

much larger, with population living in a relatively small part. In a relatively large rural tract,
an unconventional well might be located near or in a tract, but not be located near the
TE

population in that tract. Clough and Bell [•15] account for this by using a binary dasymetric
mapping technique to remap data within census block groups. Their work examined only
the Pennsylvania area over the Marcellus shale. They find no evidence of distributive
EP

environmental injustice with respect to race, income, poverty or education.

Johnston et al [•16] take a slightly different tack, examining wastewater disposal wells over
C

the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas, rather than the extraction wells that other scholars
have focused on. The case of south Texas makes an interesting contrast to the studies of
AC

areas over the Marcellus shale due to the greater heterogeneity in poverty levels and
ethnic diversity in the mostly rural areas where wells are located. They find clear evidence
of distributive environmental injustice: disposal wells are more likely to be located in
communities with higher percentages of people of color, and in poorer communities; the
race effects persist even when poverty is controlled for.

Exploring a slightly different type of distributional environmental justice that Clough and
Bell [•15] identify as “benefit sharing” distributional environmental justice, Fry et al [•17]
focuses on whether the benefits from unconventional wells accrue to those who bear the
negative consequences of living near them. Their study focuses on the community of
Denton, TX, which sits atop the Barnett shale. They find that the mineral rights, and thus
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the benefit, of unconventional wells, accrue mostly to individuals and business outside the
region. Thus far this has only been studied theoretically in the UK, where Cotton [18]
identifies the community payback schemes proposed by the UK government as offering the
possibility of shared benefits for the communities where unconventional wells are located;
however, they remain cautious about the potential impact if the community payback
schemes remain voluntary.

Studies of distributive environmental justice have thus far focused on the placement of
wells. However, other infrastructure such as pipelines and gas processing stations can have

PT
a profound impact on communities[19]. This is particularly true in rural communities where
this type of infrastructure is usually located: EPA regulations allow for lower quality pipeline
and compressor engines with higher emissions in so-called “remote” areas[20].

RI
3. Procedural justice and fracking

SC
While the evidence of possible environmental injustice is mixed when it comes to
distributional environmental justice, there are much clearer signs of the problems with
achieving procedural environmental justice. Procedural environmental justice requires that
the process for deciding on whether and where to build unconventional wells, and all of

U
their associated infrastructure, be open to input from all parties [12,21]. Procedural
environmental justice can be complicated with respect to fracking because of mixed public
AN
awareness of its effects, particularly in regions where wells have not been developed [22].
Scholars have pointed to two particular issues when it comes to procedural environmental
justice with respect to unconventional drilling: the level of government at which decisions
M

are made, and the ownership of mineral rights [••23]. These vary between countries, but
studies in the United States and United Kingdom conclude that procedures are not sufficient
to allow for meaningful participation from all stakeholders.
D

3.1 In the United States

TE

In the United States, the federal governance structure leads to regulations being developed
at local, state and national levels [24–29][30]; this is further complicated when the
development of wells is on land owned by the Native American nations [31]. This highly
EP

fractured structure can make it difficult for stakeholders to engage in the regulatory
process: “This complex web makes public participation challenging, as there is no clear
pathway for participation nor surety of influence giving rise to grassroots opposition from
C

multiple organizations” [••23]. Local residents may find it particularly difficult to know
where to turn to address concerns about developments in their area. Civic engagement
AC

with fracking increases when fracking policies are set at the local, rather than state or
national level[27, •32].

In addition to governance structure, the degree of procedural environmental justice can be

profoundly affected by ownership of mineral rights, and the accompanying ability to extract
gas. In the US, mineral rights and surface property rights split, and often owned by different
parties [•17, ••23]. Regulations vary by state, but generally the owner of the mineral rights
can use whatever portion of the surface property is necessary to extract the minerals from
the subsurface [••23]. This leaves the owner of the surface rights with little legal standing
in determining how their property is being used. Even in rural Pennsylvania, where many
farmers hold the mineral rights to their properties, Malin and DeMaster [•33] report that
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
farmers feel a lack of procedural equity. Their lack of legal support means that they are at a
disadvantage when negotiating leases, and once the lease is signed farmers find it difficult
to control how gas companies use their land.

In contrast to the work looking at procedural environmental justice in the context of newly
drilled wells, Sicotte and Joyce [•32] explores Philadelphia’s push to become an energy hub
for the natural gas coming from the Marcellus shale. This moves the work on
environmental justice and fracking to the context of a major urban area. Traditional
environmental groups formed alliances with labour organizations to counter the proposed

PT
privatization of the city’s gas utility as part of these changes. Much of the power over this
decision rested with Philadelphia’s powerful City Council, who were receptive to input from
this wide range of stakeholders. This further emphasises how important local control over

RI
decision-making is for creating a more open, participatory process.

SC
3.2 In the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, there is a clearer division between levels of governance, with the
national government responsible for overall energy policy. Mineral rights are held by the
Crown Estate, representing the interests of the monarch. Local control and input into

U
fracking happens mostly through local planning processes, and local authorities give
permission to pursue drilling at specific sites [23]. The nationally elected Conservative
AN
government announced a policy of going “all out for shale” in January 2014. The slightly
clearer regulatory structure in the UK can make it easier for stakeholders to identify which
levels of government are responsible for which policies. However, the strong national push
M

for fracking has left local stakeholders feeling as though they don't have an equal place at
the table [18, •34,35].
D

Overall, the more fractured regulatory system in the United States provides more
opportunities for participation in decision-making, but makes it more challenging for
TE

inexperienced stakeholders to understand how to participate effectively. In urban areas,

such as Philadelphia, established stakeholders such as environmental groups may be able to
participate effectively, whereas in rural areas stakeholders such as farmers may be unused
EP

to organising politically. In the United Kingdom, there is greater clarity surrounding

participatory structures, but the highly nationalized regulatory system means that it is
difficult for stakeholders to effect change if their interests run counter to that of the party in
C

government.
AC

What remains unaddressed by the literature on procedural environmental justice are the
collective action challenges faced by low-resource groups who are trying to achieve
collective aims [36]. In the rural communities where fracking takes place, residents may be
so committed to an individual action that they find it difficult to organize collectively to have
a voice, even when they have concerns about the impact of fracking in their communities
[37]. It would also be helpful from a procedural justice perspective to examine how
evaluations of environmental justice, required as part of environmental impact statements
in the US, affect decision-making about whether and where fracking infrastructure is built.

4. Environmental justice as recognition and fracking

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Procedural environmental justice requires that decision-making around unconventional
wells and the associated infrastructure be open. However, many scholars point out that it is
not enough for procedures to be open: all stakeholders must be recognized as legitimate in
order for a just procedure to be in place [11,13,38]. Cross national work on recognition
suggests that stakeholders who have been opposed to fracking, either nationally or locally,
have struggled to be recognized as legitimate by both local and national governments. One
avenue for this is misrecognition, in which the thoughts, needs and ideas of one set of
actors are clearly put ahead of another set of actors [11,13]. This can happen through
denigrating the expertise of one side. For instance, in the debate over unconventional

PT
drilling in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, the chief oil and gas geologist for
Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources characterised the
documentary “Gasland” as propaganda, going so far as to say that Joseph Goebbels would

RI
have given Fox “the Nazi award” for Gasland [38]. In the UK, the primary expert witness for
opponents to fracking in Lancaster was dismissed as being a retired professor who was

SC
running a B&B; the former professor had actually spent his “retirement” years consulting for
gas and mineral companies, while his wife was running a B&B [•34]. Groups can also suffer
from malrecognition when they are facing opponents whose legal resources are
considerably greater than their own, and thus may be subject to “malignant” legal

U
complaints [38], such as the farmers in Pennsylvania who leased their land to gas companies
[•33].
AN
5. Conclusion
Three major types of potential environmental injustice have been identified: distributive,
M

procedural and recognition. The evidence is so far inconclusive with respect to traditional
measures of distributive environmental justice. Some studies have found that wells are
located within disproportionately poorer neighbourhoods with more ethnic minorities,
D

while others have not. Methodological problems that arise from using aggregated census
data make it difficult to analyse who actually lives close to wells [15]. The picture with
TE

respect to procedural justice is much clearer: opponents to fracking find it very difficult to
get an equal seat at the table when it comes to deciding on everything from regulations to
the local placement of wells. Strong local governments and local control over regulations
EP

can help the process be more open and procedurally just. A full range of stakeholders have
trouble being recognized as having a legitimate voice in the decision-making process around
fracking regulation and infrastructure. This framework suggests that governments need to
C

be more careful in the future in creating open decision-making processes in which all stake-
holders have a recognized voice.
AC

Examinations of environmental justice with relation to fracking continues to be a very active

field: as concerns grow over the environmental impacts of fracking wells and their
associated infrastructure, so do concerns about who those impacts will affect most. One
area for further exploration would be greater examination of environmental justice issues
surrounding infrastructure other than wells, such as pipelines for hydraulically fracked gas
and gas compressor stations. Environmental justice work on oil (as opposed to gas)
pipelines has found that they can have profound environmental justice implications [39],
and some work has identified the challenges that rail transport of gas poses for human
rights of the communities living along the rail lines [40]. Pipelines and compressor stations
can have negative consequences for the communities where they’re built; all the more so
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
because regulations are not as strict for pipelines built in rural areas in the US, as discussed
above. It is important to understand how these might affect communities where they are
placed. Much work remains to truly understand the normative consequences of hydraulic
fracturing.

1. Hays J, De Melo-Martín I: Ethical concerns surrounding unconventional oil and gas

development and vulnerable populations. Rev Environ Health 2014, 29:275–276.
2. Evensen D: Ethics and “fracking”: A review of (the limited) moral though on shale
gas development. WIREs Water 3 2016,

PT
3. de Melo-Martín I, Hays J, Finkel ML: The role of ethics in shale gas policies. Sci Total
Environ 2014, 470–471:1114–1119.
4. Neville KJ, Baka J, Gamper-Rabindran S, Bakker K, Andreasson S, Vengosh A, Lin A,

RI
Singh JN, Weinthal E: Debating Unconventional Energy: Social, Political, and
Economic Implications. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2017, 42:241–266.

SC
5. Short D, Elliot J, Norder K, Lloyd-Davies E, Morley J: Extreme energy, “fracking” and
human rights: a new field for human rights impact assessments? Int J Hum Rights
2015, 19:697–736.
6. Wheeler D, MacGregor M, Atherton F, Christmas K, Dalton S, Dusseault M, Gagnon G,

U
Hayes B, MacIntosh C, Mauro I, et al.: Hydraulic fracturing - Integrating public
participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits. Energy Policy
AN
2015, 85:299–308.
7. Meng Q: Fracking equity: A spatial justice analysis prototype. Land use policy 2018,
70:10–15.
M

8. Evensen DT: Policy decisions on shale gas development (“fracking”): The

insufficiency of science and necessity of moral thought. Environ Values 2015,
24:511–534.
D

9. Evensen D: On the complexity of ethical claims related to shale gas policy. Local
Environ 2017, 22:1290–1297.
TE

10. Bullard RD: Dumping in Dixie. Westview Press; 1990.

11. Schlosberg D: Defining environmental justice: theories, movements, and nature.
Oxford University Press; 2007.
EP

12. Bell D, Carrick J: Procedural Environmental Justice. In The Routledge Handbook of

Environmental Justice. . Routledge; 2018.
13. Walker G: Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics. Routledge; 2012.
C

14. Ogneva-Himmelberger Y, Huang L: Spatial distribution of unconventional gas wells

and human populations in the Marcellus Shale in the United States: Vulnerability
AC

analysis. Appl Geogr 2015, 60:165–174.

15. Clough E, Bell D: Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of
unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Res Lett 2016,
11:25001.
16. Johnston JE, Werder E, Sebastian D: Wastewater disposal wells, fracking, and
environmental injustice in Southern Texas. Am J Public Health 2016, 106:550–556.
17. Fry M, Briggle A, Kincaid J: Fracking and environmental (in)justice in a Texas city.
Ecol Econ 2015, 117:97–107.
18. Cotton M: Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale
gas policy and planning. Local Environ 2017, 22:185–202.
19. NPR: Pipelines: The new battleground over fracking. State Impact [date unknown],
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20. Simonelli J: Home Rule and Natural Gas Development in New York: Civil Fracking
Rights. J Polit Ecol 2014, 21:258–278.
21. Schlosberg D: Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a
discourse. Env Polit 2013, 22:37–55.
22. Thomas M, Pidgeon N, Evensen D, Partridge T, Hasell A, Enders C, Herr Harthorn B,
Bradshaw M: Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the
United States and Canada. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2017, 8:1–19.
23. Whitton J, Brasier K, Charnley-Parry I, Cotton M: Shale gas governance in the United
Kingdom and the United States: Opportunities for public participation and the

PT
implications for social justice. Energy Res Soc Sci 2017, 26:11–22.
24. Davis C: Substate Federalism and Fracking Policies: Does State Regulatory Authority
Trump Local Land Use Autonomy? Environ Sci Technol 2014, 48:8397−8403.

RI
25. Fisk JM: Fractured Relationships : Exploring Municipal Defiance in Colorado , Texas ,
and Ohio. State Local Gov Rev 2016, 48:75–86.

SC
26. Fisk JM, Park Y, Mahafza Z: “ Fractivism” in the City : Assessing Defiance at the
Neighborhood Level. State Local Gov Rev 2017, 49:105–116.
27. Arnold G, Holahan R: The federalism of fracking: How the locus of policy-making
authority affects civic engagement. Publius 2014, 44:344–368.

U
28. Fry M, Brannstrom C, Murphy T: How Dallas became frack free : hydrocarbon
governance under neoliberalism. 2015, 47:2591–2608.
AN
29. Kostandini G, Centner TJ: Who governs local hydrocarbon development? Evidence
from the Marcellus Shale in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 2016, 20:99–104.
30. Pacheco E: It’s a Fracking Conundrum : Environmental Justice and the Battle to
M

Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing. Ecol Law Q 2015, 42.

31. Thompson GEB: The Double-Edged Sword of Sovereignty by the Barrel: How Native
Nations Can Wield Environmental Justice in the Fight against the Harms of Fracking.
D

UCLA Law Rev 2016, 63:1818–1860.

32. Sicotte DM, Joyce KA: Not a “Petro Metro”: Challenging Fossil Fuel Expansion.
TE

Environ Sociol 2017, Manuscript.

33. Malin SA, DeMaster KT: A devil’s bargain: Rural environmental injustices and
hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania’s farms. J Rural Stud 2016, 47:278–290.
EP

34. Short D, Szolucha A: Fracking Lancashire: The planning process, social harm and
collective trauma. Geoforum 2016, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.001.
35. Bradshaw M, Waite C: Learning from Lancashire : Exploring the contours of the shale
C

gas con fl ict in England. Glob Environ Chang 2017, 47:28–36.

36. Olson M: The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press; 1977.
AC

37. Eaton E, Kinchy A: Quiet voices in the fracking debate: Ambivalence,

nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities
(Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania). Energy Res Soc Sci 2016, 20:22–30.
38. Kennedy A, Schafft KA, Howard TM: Taking away David’s sling : environmental
justice and land-use conflict in extractive resource development. Local Environ 2017,
0:1–17.
39. Rourke DO, Connolly S: Just Oil: The distribution of environmental and social
impacts of oil production and consumption. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2003, 28:587–
617.
40. Burton L, Stretesky P: Wrong Side of the Tracks: The Neglected Human Costs of
Transporting Oil and Gas. Health Hum Rights 2014, 16:82–92.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1: Types of Environmental Justice

Which groups bear the risks of

living near fracking wells?
Environmental Justice Distributive
Who receives the benefits that

PT
fracking wells provide?

RI
Is the process for decision
Procedural making around fracking open

SC
to all stakeholders?

U
AN
Are stakeholders recognised
Recognition as having a legitimate voice in
the decision-making process?

M
D
TE
C EP
AC