The assumption that the democratisation of environmental law is central to ensuring the legitimacy of decisions permeates the literature. Using an empirically grounded counter narrative, this article confronts and contests that assumption. It argues that in the context of shale gas/fracking, public understanding positions expertise not as an obstacle to legitimacy, but rather as a foundational factor. This involves a role in which experts fulfil a publicly delegated role, the delineation of which warrants a form of participation that repositions its purpose and value. However, this conceptualisation of an expert’s role, and the type of participation required, demonstrates a fundamental public misunderstanding about what experts can deliver: ‘expert excess’. This article argues that we, as scholars, need to reflect upon: (1) the weight given to empirical perceptions of legitimacy and participation when developing theoretical models; (2) why there is such a misconception around what experts can deliver in decision-making.

中文翻译：

---

“我们需要专家”：水力压裂和专家过剩案例

环境法的民主化是确保决策合法性的核心的假设在文献中无处不在。本文使用以经验为基础的反叙事，面对并质疑该假设。它认为，在页岩气/水力压裂的背景下，公众的理解不是将专业知识定位为合法性的障碍，而是一个基本因素。这涉及专家履行公开委派角色的角色，其描述保证了一种重新定位其目的和价值的参与形式。然而，这种对专家角色和所需参与类型的概念化表明，公众对专家可以提供的东西存在根本性的误解：“专家过剩”。本文认为，作为学者，我们需要反思：(1) 在开发理论模型时对合法性和参与的经验认知的权重；(2) 为什么对专家在决策中可以提供的内容存在如此误解。