| Summary/Abstract |
High volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) is a contentious issue worldwide. It is a crucial policy issue due to its significant impact on multiple stakeholders and, as a result, requires extensive public consultation and exposure. One process deployed in some liberal democracies to address this controversy is forming an independent expert review panel to receive public submissions and then prepare a report for policymakers. Our paper investigated how closely the review panel reports reflect and weigh the public submissions and to explore the subjects in which there is agreement or disagreement across the various reports. This study used the Leximancer automated text analysis software to compare key themes in the sub-national reports and public submissions. We find a consistent pattern across jurisdictions of public submissions reflecting health and environment while official reports focus on industry and economic development. There is a wide range of congruency between the jurisdictions on the capacity of the expert reports to reflect public opinion. Following from this divergence, we aim to contribute to more meaningful discussions regarding effective communication strategies between the government and the public to ensure review panel reports fairly represent public concerns.
|