We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 local community members in and around the Fylde region of Lancashire on the topic shale development. The interviews were conducted between April and June 2019. We recruited participants through purposive and snowball sampling. We intentionally sought participants who had been visibly active on the issue locally, and also sought a good balance of both views on the matter and geographical spread of participants within the region. Once initial participants had been recruited, we used the snowballing technique to identify further possible participants. This approach resulted in a sample of 31 interviewees from three geographical areas in the region (rural Fylde, coastal Fylde, and the wider region); of whom 19 were anti-fracking, 6 were pro-fracking and 6 were ambivalent. Our semi-structured interview protocol included questions about attitudes to and general perceptions of shale development; beliefs about impacts (local, national and global; actual and potential); views on governance, regulation and energy policy; reactions to archetypal positions put forward in the shale development policy debate; and experiences, expectations and perceptions of participatory opportunities.Hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') is a technology that allows the extraction of unconventional fossil fuel resources (oil and gas). The technology has been widely used in North America over the last decade but is in a much earlier stage of development in the UK. Government policy in the UK is actively encouraging the deployment of this technology and test drilling has taken place at several sites in the UK. There has been significant policy and public controversy around the use of the technology: it is simultaneously viewed by some actors as a novel and risky technology with the potential to adversely affect public health and the environment, but by others as rather more mundane and manageable. Shale gas, furthermore, is viewed by some as able to help the UK meet emissions reduction objectives but by others as hindering this task. Finally, the governance of shale gas development is also a source of conflict, with varying ideas about the ways and extent to which publics and local communities should have a say in policy and decision-making. This contested nature of shale development amongst different groups and stakeholders represents a key socio-political challenge for development in the UK. We analyse this challenge as arising from distinct ways of understanding and viewing the fracking issues ('framing') amongst different kinds of actors. We aim to improve understanding of this socio-political challenge facing shale development in the UK through an investigation of the relationships between three distinct but related research areas: public perceptions of the issue, policy debates ('frames') around shale gas and fracking, and formal processes of public engagement and participation on the matter. A nationally representative survey of public perceptions, as well as in-depth interviewing in a local community case study (the Fylde, Lancashire), will provide a better understanding of public perceptions on fracking for shale and the actors and processes of its governance, and the public acceptability of shale development in the UK. Policy debates will be analysed to better understand the arguments ('frames') put forward by advocates, their contestation, and how these debates have shaped and continue to shape UK policy. Finally, formal processes of public engagement and participation will be examined in order to assess the extent to which they help to resolve or amplify the public acceptance challenge for shale development in the UK. We are particularly interested in the relationships between these three research areas. For example, we ask, how well do policy debates reflect public views? And can the public influence decision making? Research findings will be of interest to policy makers, industry actors, regulators, environmental groups, and members of the public with an interest in the issue of fracking and shale gas development specifically, but also the issues of climate change, democracy and social controversies over technology more broadly. The primary benefit of the research will be to provide both a better understanding of the scale and nature of the social and political challenges facing shale gas development in UK, and a better understanding of the potential of public participation and engagement to help address these challenges.

We interviewed 31 local community members from in and around the Fylde region of Lancashire, UK. The Fylde is an area that has experienced shale gas exploration activity by the company Cuadrilla since it acquired a license in the area in 2008. We recruited participants through purposive and snowball sampling. We intentionally sought participants who had been visibly active on the issue locally, and also sought a good balance of both views on the matter and geographical spread of participants within the region. Once initial participants had been recruited, we used the snowballing technique to identify further possible participants. This approach resulted in a sample of 31 interviewees from three geographical areas in the region (rural Fylde, coastal Fylde, and the wider region); of whom 19 were anti-fracking, 6 were pro-fracking and 6 were ambivalent (see Tables 1 and 2). The rural Fylde area covers the more rural inland part of the Fylde, including the area around the Preston New Road site and in and around the village of Roseacre. Coastal Fylde refers to the more urban and populous coast, including the towns of Lytham, Lytham St Annes and Blackpool. Wider region refers to the wider region in and around Cuadrilla’s license area (PEDL 165), and includes the city of Preston. The interviews were conducted between April and June 2019. The interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent. The recordings were then selectively transcribed by the researchers. During selective transcription, passages of an interviewee's response were typed up if they were felt to be potentially significant in relation to the research questions of the project. The transcripts were anonymized through the removal of direct and indirect personal identifiers. Where passages have been removed or words changed to preserve anonymity this is indicated by the use of {} brackets in the transcripts. The interviews lasted between 30mins and 2hrs. 30 of the interviews were conducted face-to-face and 1 of the interviews was conducted by phone. The interviews were semi-structured, and the interview protocol (and follow up questions) can be seen in the transcript files. Our semi-structured interview protocol included questions about attitudes to and general perceptions of shale development; beliefs about impacts (local, national and global; actual and potential); views on governance, regulation and energy policy; reactions to archetypal positions put forward in the shale development policy debate; and experiences, expectations and perceptions of participatory opportunities. The third section of the interviews involved participants looking at and responding to prompts. These prompts were designed to represent an archetypal perspective on the fracking issue. There were nine prompts, 4 pro-shale development and 5 anti-shale development (although there was often not time to go through each prompt). Participants were given information sheets and informed consent was secured for the use of anonymised quotes in publications stemming from the research and for anonymised transcripts to be published as open data in the UK Data Service’s repository. We are publishing the participant information sheet and (blank) consent form alongside the transcripts.