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

Environment and Planning A

Volumn 47, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1944-1962

  Matthew, Cotton ^a   Muellerleile, Chris ^b   Akers, Joshua ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

environmental discourses; Q methodology; shale gas; stakeholder perceptions

Indexed keywords

CIVIL SOCIETY; DECISION MAKING; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PERCEPTION; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT; STAKEHOLDER;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84946842568     PISSN: 0308518X     EISSN: 14723409     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0308518X15597134     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. H.AddamsJ.Proops (2000) Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
2. B.J.AndersonG.L.Theodori (2009) “Local leaders' perceptions of energy development in the Barnett shale”. Southern Rural Sociology24: 113–129.
3. I.J.Andrews (2013) The Carboniferous Bowland Shale Gas Study: Geology and Resource Estimation, London: British Geological Survey for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
4. B.Argetsinger (2011) “Marcellus shale: bridge to a clean energy future or bridge to nowhere-environmental, energy and climate policy considerations for shale gas development in New York State, The”. Pace Environmental Law Review29: 321–343.
5. Arthur J D, Bohm B, Coughlin B J, Layne M, 2009, “Evaluating implications of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas reservoirs”, SPE Americas E&P Environmental and Safety Conference, San Antonio, Texas, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/121038-MS
6. P.C.Balcombe (2012) Fracking Poll Results, Balcombe, West Sussex: Balcombe Parish Council.
7. A.BanerjeeJ.P.ProzziJ.A.Prozzi (2012) “Evaluating the effect of natural gas developments on highways”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2282: 49–56.
8. J.BarryJ.Proops (1999) “Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology”. Ecological Economics28: 337–345.
9. M.BickleD.GoodmanR.MairR.RobertsR.C.SelleyZ.ShipstonH.ThomasP.Younger (2012) Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing, London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
10. K.J.BrasierM.R.FilteauD.K.McLaughlinJ.JacquetR.C.StedmanT.W.KelseyS.J.Goetz (2011) “Residents' perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases”. Journal of Rural Social Sciences26: 32–61.
11. S.Brown (1993) “A primer on Q methodology”. Operant Subjectivity16: 91–138.
12. S.R.Brown (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.
13. S.R.Brown (1996) “Q methodology and qualitative research”. Qualitative Health Research6: 501–512.
14. K.Burningham (2000) “Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers”. Local Environment5: 55–67.
15. Cairney P, Fischer M, Ingold K, 2015, “Hydraulic fracturing policy in the UK: coalition, cooperation and opposition in the face of uncertainty”, Political Studies Association Annual International Conference, Sheffield, https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2015/Cairney%20Fischer%20Ingold%20fracking%20in%20the%20UK%2025%20Feb%202015.pdf
16. T.ColbornC.KwiatkowskiK.SchultzM.Bachran (2011) “Natural gas operations from a public health perspective”. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment17: 1039–1056.
17. M.Cotton (2013) “NIMBY or not? Integrating social factors into shale gas community engagements”. Natural Gas and Electricity29: 8–12.
18. M.CottonI.RattleJ.Van Alstine (2014) “Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis”. Energy Policy73: 427–438.
19. R.CurryJ.BarryA.McClenaghan (2012) “Northern visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management56: 624–649.
20. C.DavisJ.M.Fisk (2014) “Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States”. Review of Policy Research31: 1–16.
21. C.DavisK.Hoffer (2012) “Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking”. Policy Sciences45: 221–241.
22. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2009) The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate and Energy, London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
23. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2013) Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration in the UK: Regulation and Best Practice, London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
24. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2014) Fracking UK Shale: Water, London: Department of Energy & Climate Change.
25. Deutsche Bank (2011) European Gas: A First Look as EU Shale Gas Prospects, London: Deutsche Bank.
26. J.S.Dryzek (1997) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. J.S.Dryzek (2009) “Democratization as deliberative capacity building”. Comparative Political Studies42: 1379–1402.
28. S.EdenA.DonaldsonW.Gordon (2005) “Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography”. Area37: 413–422.
29. L.EisnerE.JanskaP.Matousek (2011) Seismic Analysis of the Events in the Vicinity of the Preese Hall Well, London: Seismik report for Cuadrilla Resources.
30. N.Fairclough (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London: Routledge.
31. M.H.FinewoodL.J.Stroup (2012) “Fracking and the neoliberalization of the hydro-social cycle in Pennsylvania's marcellus shale”. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education147: 72–79.
32. F.Gény (2011) Can Unconventional Gas Be a Game Changer in European Gas Markets?, Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
33. C.A.GreenP.StylesB.Baptie (2012) Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing: Review and Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation, London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
34. M.Hajer (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
35. HM Treasury (2013) Harnessing the Potential of the UK's Natural Resources: A Fiscal Regime for Shale Gas, London: H Treasury.
36. R.HowarthR.SantoroA.Ingraffea (2011) “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations”. Climatic Change106: 679–690.
37. J.B.Jacquet (2012) “Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania”. Energy Policy50: 677–688.
38. R.JaspalB.Nerlich (2014) “Fracking in the UK media: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate”. Public Understanding of Science23: 348–363.
39. R.JaspalA.TurnerB.Nerlich (2014) “Fracking on YouTube: Exploring risks, benefits and human values”. Environmental Values23: 501–527.
40. P.Johnstone (2014) “Planning reform, rescaling, and the construction of the postpolitical: the case of The Planning Act 2008 and nuclear power consultation in the UK”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32: 697–713.
41. D.M.KargboR.G.WilhelmD.J.Campbell (2010) “Natural gas plays in the marcellus shale: challenges and potential opportunities”. Environmental Science and Technology44: 5679–5684.
42. Lancashire County Council, 2015, “Agenda and minutes of the Development Control Committee, Wednesday, 28th January, 2015 10.00 am.”, http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=118&MId=4340&Ver=4
43. K.T.Litfin (1994) Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation, New York: Columbia University Press.
44. A.LitovitzA.CurtrightS.AbramzonN.BurgerC.Samaras (2013) “Estimation of regional air-quality damages from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction in Pennsylvania”. Environmental Research Letters8: 014017.
45. B.McKeownD.Thomas (1988) Q Methodology, London: Sage.
46. B.McKeownD.Thomas (1989) Q Methodology: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, London: SAGE Publications.
47. K.McClymontP.O’Hare (2008) “‘We're not NIMBYs!’ Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities”. Local Environment13: 321–335.
48. P.M.MacnaghtenJ.Chilvers (2012) “Governing risky technologies”. In: S.LaneF.KlauserM.Kearnes (eds) Critical Risk Research: Practices, Politics and Ethics, London: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 99–124.
49. S.Malin (2013) “There's no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland”. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences4: 17–27.
50. T.MarshallM.Stephenson (2012) “Shale: no great shakes?Planet Earth, London: Natural Environment Research CouncilOnline 27th April 2012 20-21 http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/features/story.aspx?id=1160&cookieConsent=A.
51. S.Moore (2012) Gas Works? Shale Gas and Its Policy Implications, London: Policy Exchange.
52. NaturalGas.org, 2013, “Water requirements of shale production”, http://www.naturalgas.org/shale/waterrequirements.asp
53. No Dash For Gas, 2013, “No dash for gas response to telegraph piece today”, http://www.nodashforgas.org.uk/
54. S.O'HaraM.HumphreyJ.AnderssonR.JaspalB.NerlichW.Knight (2014) Public Perception of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: The Turn Against Fracking Deepens, Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
55. S.O'HaraM.HumphreyR.JaspalB.NerlichW.Knight (2013) Public Perception of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: The Impact of the Balcombe Protests in July–August 2013, Nottingham: Nottingham University.
56. J.R.ParkinsR.E.Mitchell (2005) “Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management”. Society and Natural Resources18: 529–540.
57. I.PearsonP.ZeniewskiF.GraccevaP.ZasteraC.McGladeS.SorrellJ.SpeirsG.Thonhauser (2012) Unconventional Gas: Potential Energy Market Impacts in the European Union, Petten: European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport.
58. Prime Minister's Office (2014) The Queen's Speech 2014, London: Prime Minister's Office.
59. B.G.RabeC.Borick (2013) “Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania's early move into fracking policy development”. Review of Policy Research30: 321–340.
60. B.G.RahmS.J.Riha (2012) “Toward strategic management of shale gas development: regional, collective impacts on water resources”. Environmental Science and Policy17: 12–23.
61. H.Rogers (2011) “Shale gas—the unfolding story”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy27: 117–143.
62. P.Sawer (2013) “Fracking protests head north as activists mass on proposed Manchester shale gas exploration sites”. The Telegraph. 21 December 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/10532769/Fracking-protests-head-north-as-activists-mass-on-proposed-Manchester-shale-gas-exploration-sites.html.
63. K.A.SchafftY.BorluL.Glenna (2013) “The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity”. Rural Sociology78: 143–166.
64. J.I.ScraseD.G.Ockwell (2010) “The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy—an accessible introduction”. Energy Policy38: 2225–2233.
65. M.F.SmithD.P.Ferguson (2013) “‘Fracking democracy’: issue management and locus of policy decision-making in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling debate”. Public Relations Review39: 377–386.
66. W.Stainton-RogersD.HeveyE.Ash (1989) Child Abuse and Neglect, London: Batsford Ltd. and Open University Press.
67. R.Stainton Rogers (1995) “Q Methodology”. In: R.Smith (ed.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology, London: Sage, pp. 178–192.
68. T.A.SteelmanL.A.Maguire (1999) “Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18: 361–388.
69. P.StennerH.Marshall (1996) “A Q methodological study of rebelliousness”. European Journal of Social Psychology25: 612–636.
70. P.StennerR.Stainton Rogers (2004) “Q methodology and qualiquantology: the example of discriminating between emotions”. In: Z.TodB.NerlichS.MckeownD.Clark (eds) Mixing Methods in Psychology, London: Routledge, pp. 99–118.
71. E.StephensonA.DoukasK.Shaw (2012) “Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”. Energy Policy46: 452–459.
72. W.Stephenson (1953) The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its Methodology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73. E.Swyngedouw (2007) “Impossible ‘sustainability’ and the postpolitical condition”. In: R.KruegerR.Gibbs (eds) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe, New York: The Guildford Press, pp. 13–40.
74. L.Theodori (2009) “Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development”. Southern Rural Sociology24: 97–117.
75. T.Tillett (2013) “Summit discusses public health implications of fracking”. Environmental Health Perspectives121: a15.
76. H.B.Truelove (2012) “Energy source perceptions and policy support: image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs”. Energy Policy45: 478–489.
77. R.Turney (2013) Fracking and the National Planning Policy Framework, London: Landmark Chambers.
78. UNECE, 1998, “Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters”, in Fourth ministerial conference: environment for europe, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Aarhus, Denmark, http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
79. D.van der Horst (2007) “NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies”. Energy Policy35: 2705–2714.
80. T.A.Van Dijk (2001) “Critical discourse analysis”. In: D.SchiffrinD.TannenH.E.Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 352–371.
81. N.Watt (2014) “Fracking in the UK: ‘We're going all out for shale,’ admits Cameron”. The Guardian. 13th January 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/13/shale-gas-fracking-cameron-all-out.
82. T.WeblerS.Tuler (2006) “Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies”. Policy Studies Journal34: 699–722.
83. D.L.Weimer (1999) “Comment: Q-method and the isms”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18: 426–429.
84. R.WitterK.StinsonH.SackettS.PutterG.KinneyD.TeitelbaumL.Newman (2008) “Potential exposure-related human health effects of oil and gas development: a white paper”. Colorado School of Public Health, Denver. http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_08091702a.pdf.
85. B.J.Wynveen (2011) “A thematic analysis of local respondents perceptions of Barnett Shale energy development”. Journal of Rural Social Sciences26: 8–31.
86. M.ZobakS.KitaseiB.Copithorne (2010) Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development, Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.