Abstract
In this article, we evaluate competing environmental knowledge claims in U.S. hydraulic fracturing (HF) regulation. We conduct a case study of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) rule-making process over the period from 2012 to 2015, which was the first attempt to update federal oil and gas regulations in thirty years. Our study addresses a gap in the energy geographies and environmental governance literatures, which have yet to evaluate systematically HF-related decision-making processes at the policymaking scale. We mobilize theoretical insights from science and technology studies on boundary objects and critical environmental discourse analysis to conduct a “cultural cartography” of the BLM’s rule-making process. Our analysis of a subset of 1.4 million public comments submitted to the BLM, combined with fifteen stakeholder interviews, focuses on (1) who participated in the rule-making process; (2) the types of knowledge claims advanced in support or opposition of the rule; and (3) how these claims affected the rule-making process. In contrast to recent literature that finds increased “horizontality” of environmental knowledge production, we find a clear hierarchy that privileges government knowledge—including federal government–sponsored research and existing laws—above all other categories of evidence cited. As such, we argue that government knowledge—which in this case brought disparate stakeholder groups together to debate HF regulation—functions as a key boundary object in the rule-making process. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both research and policy. Key Words: boundary work, Bureau of Land Management, hydraulic fracturing, regulation, rule making.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1941-1960 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Annals of the American Association of Geographers |
| Volume | 109 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 2 2019 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Earth-Surface Processes
Cite this
}
Environmental Knowledge Cartographies : Evaluating Competing Discourses in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Rule-Making. / Baka, Jennifer E.; Hesse, Arielle; Weinthal, Erika; Bakker, Karen.
In: Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Vol. 109, No. 6, 02.11.2019, p. 1941-1960.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Environmental Knowledge Cartographies
T2 - Evaluating Competing Discourses in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Rule-Making
AU - Baka, Jennifer E.
AU - Hesse, Arielle
AU - Weinthal, Erika
AU - Bakker, Karen
PY - 2019/11/2
Y1 - 2019/11/2
N2 - In this article, we evaluate competing environmental knowledge claims in U.S. hydraulic fracturing (HF) regulation. We conduct a case study of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) rule-making process over the period from 2012 to 2015, which was the first attempt to update federal oil and gas regulations in thirty years. Our study addresses a gap in the energy geographies and environmental governance literatures, which have yet to evaluate systematically HF-related decision-making processes at the policymaking scale. We mobilize theoretical insights from science and technology studies on boundary objects and critical environmental discourse analysis to conduct a “cultural cartography” of the BLM’s rule-making process. Our analysis of a subset of 1.4 million public comments submitted to the BLM, combined with fifteen stakeholder interviews, focuses on (1) who participated in the rule-making process; (2) the types of knowledge claims advanced in support or opposition of the rule; and (3) how these claims affected the rule-making process. In contrast to recent literature that finds increased “horizontality” of environmental knowledge production, we find a clear hierarchy that privileges government knowledge—including federal government–sponsored research and existing laws—above all other categories of evidence cited. As such, we argue that government knowledge—which in this case brought disparate stakeholder groups together to debate HF regulation—functions as a key boundary object in the rule-making process. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both research and policy. Key Words: boundary work, Bureau of Land Management, hydraulic fracturing, regulation, rule making.
AB - In this article, we evaluate competing environmental knowledge claims in U.S. hydraulic fracturing (HF) regulation. We conduct a case study of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) rule-making process over the period from 2012 to 2015, which was the first attempt to update federal oil and gas regulations in thirty years. Our study addresses a gap in the energy geographies and environmental governance literatures, which have yet to evaluate systematically HF-related decision-making processes at the policymaking scale. We mobilize theoretical insights from science and technology studies on boundary objects and critical environmental discourse analysis to conduct a “cultural cartography” of the BLM’s rule-making process. Our analysis of a subset of 1.4 million public comments submitted to the BLM, combined with fifteen stakeholder interviews, focuses on (1) who participated in the rule-making process; (2) the types of knowledge claims advanced in support or opposition of the rule; and (3) how these claims affected the rule-making process. In contrast to recent literature that finds increased “horizontality” of environmental knowledge production, we find a clear hierarchy that privileges government knowledge—including federal government–sponsored research and existing laws—above all other categories of evidence cited. As such, we argue that government knowledge—which in this case brought disparate stakeholder groups together to debate HF regulation—functions as a key boundary object in the rule-making process. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both research and policy. Key Words: boundary work, Bureau of Land Management, hydraulic fracturing, regulation, rule making.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065156099&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065156099&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/24694452.2019.1574549
DO - 10.1080/24694452.2019.1574549
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85065156099
VL - 109
SP - 1941
EP - 1960
JO - Annals of the American Association of Geographers
JF - Annals of the American Association of Geographers
SN - 2469-4452
IS - 6
ER -