Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: A Q-method study of environmental discourses

The rapid expansion of shale gas exploration worldwide is a significant source of environmental controversy. Successful shale gas policymaking is dependent upon a clear understanding of the dynamics of competing stakeholder perspectives on these issues, and so methods are needed to delineate the areas of agreement and conflict that emerge. This empirical study, based in the United Kingdom, examines emergent perspectives on a range of environmental, health and socio-economic impacts associated with shale gas fracking using Q- methodology: a combined qualitative-quantitative approach. The analysis reveals three typologies of perspectives amongst key industry, civil society and non-affiliated citizen stakeholders; subsequently contextualised in relation to Dryzek’s typology of environmental discourses. These are labelled A) “Don’t trust the fossil fuels industry: campaign for renewables” (mediating between sustainable development and democratic pragmatism discourses); B) “Shale gas is a bridge fuel: economic growth and environmental scepticism” (mediating between economic rationalism and ecological modernisation discourses); and C) “Take place protective action and legislate in the public interest” (reflecting a discourse of administrative rationalism). The implications of these competing discourses for nascent shale gas policy in the UK are discussed in light of recent Government public consultation on changes to national planning policy

Public perceptions of shale gas in the UK : framing effects and decision heuristics

Using two equivalent descriptions of the shale gas development process, we asked individuals to indicate their levels of support as well as their perceptions of the risks and costs involved. In version 1, shale gas development was framed as ‘fracking’, whereas under version 2 it was framed as ‘using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground’. We find that individuals’ support for shale gas development is much lower when using the term ‘fracking’ as opposed to the synonymous descriptive term, and moreover, these differences were substantive. Our analysis suggests that these differences appear to be largely the result of different assessments of the risks associated with ‘fracking’ as opposed to ‘using hydraulic pressure to extract natural gas from the ground’. Our proposed explanation for these differences rests on the idea that shale gas development is a technical and complex process and many individuals will be bounded by the rationality of scientific knowledge when it comes to understanding this process. In turn, individuals may be relying on simple decision heuristics shaped by the way this issue is framed by the media and other interested parties which may constrain meaningful discourse on this topic with the public. Our findings also highlight some of the potential pitfalls when it comes to relying on survey research for assessing the public’s views towards complex environmental issues

Local Ambivalence to Diverse Mobilities – The Case of a Norwegian Rural Village

In Norway, immigration and tourism have become important drivers of diversity in rural communities. While rural migration mostly has been studied from the migrants’ perspective, this article examines how long‐term residents in a Norwegian rural mountain resort characterised by seasonal tourism and labour immigration experience the flux of diverse migrants and how this affects them and the local community. The article is based on 12 interviews with men and women who are long‐term community residents. A major narrative of the locals is that of the village and its inhabitants as accustomed to mobility, a local knowledge acquired through decades of tourism and in‐migration. But there are also narratives of ambivalence and contradictions and of the place as saturated by mobilities. The article explores how locals adjust to and avoid these mobilities

Thyroid cancer surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: perioperative management and oncological and anatomical considerations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed many aspects of our everyday lives and medical practice, including oncology treatment; thyroid cancer surgery is not an exception. The reported number of fine-needle aspirations performed during the first semester of 2020 was significantly reduced. Poorly differentiated, medullary and anaplastic thyroid tumors are considered important indications for immediate surgical intervention. By contrast, most well-differentiated carcinomas present slow growth, and thus surgery can be deferred for a short period of time during which patients are under active surveillance. Thyroid surgeries have decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, prior to any intervention, negative COVID-19 status – with the use of a nasopharyngeal swab and reverse transcription PCR assay as the gold standard and chest CT scan as a complementary modality in some cases – must be confirmed to achieve a COVID-free pathway. Thorough preoperative assessment regarding both oncological and anatomical aspects should be performed to identify optimal timing for safe management

Thyroid cancer surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: perioperative management and oncological and anatomical considerations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed many aspects of our everyday lives and medical practice, including oncology treatment; thyroid cancer surgery is not an exception. The reported number of fine-needle aspirations performed during the first semester of 2020 was significantly reduced. Poorly differentiated, medullary and anaplastic thyroid tumors are considered important indications for immediate surgical intervention. By contrast, most well-differentiated carcinomas present slow growth, and thus surgery can be deferred for a short period of time during which patients are under active surveillance. Thyroid surgeries have decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, prior to any intervention, negative COVID-19 status - with the use of a nasopharyngeal swab and reverse transcription PCR assay as the gold standard and chest CT scan as a complementary modality in some cases - must be confirmed to achieve a COVID-free pathway. Thorough preoperative assessment regarding both oncological and anatomical aspects should be performed to identify optimal timing for safe management