Comparing the relationship between knowledge and support for hydraulic fracturing between residents of the United States and the United Kingdom

Energy Research and Social Science

Volumn 20, Issue , 2016, Pages 142-148

  Stedman, Richard C ^a   Evensen, Darrick ^b   O'Hara, Sarah ^c   Humphrey, Mathew ^c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Comparative analyses; Hydraulic fracturing; Knowledge; Support

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991088910     PISSN: 22146296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.017     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. [1] Anderson, P., Reasonable accommodation: split estates, conservation easements, and drilling in the Marcellus Shale. VA Environ. Law J., 31, 2013, 136.
2. [2] Ashmoore, O., Evensen, D., Clarke, C., Krakower, J., Simon, J., Regional newspaper coverage of shale gas development across Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania: similarities differences, and lessons. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016), 119–132.
3. [4] Bomberg, E., Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J. Environ. Policy Plan., 2015, 1–17 published online before print.
4. [5] Borick, C., Rabe, B., LaChapelle, E., Public perceptions of shale gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania. Issues Energy Environ. Policy 14 (2014), 1–18.
5. [6] Brasier, K., Filteau, M., McLaughlin, D., Jacquet, J., Stedman, R.C., Kelsey, T., Goetz, S., Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from Marcellus Shale. Rural Soc. Stud. 26:1 (2011), 32–61.
6. [7] Bugden, D., Kay, D.L., Glynn, R., Stedman, R.C., The bundle below: understanding. unconventional oil and gas development through analysis of lease agreements. Energy Policy 92 (2016), 214–219.
7. [8] D. Cameron, We cannot afford to miss out on shale gas, The Telegraph, 11 August. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10236664/We-cannot-afford-to-miss-out-on-shale-gas.html, 2013.
8. [9] Clarke, C.E., Hart, P.S., Schuldt, J.P., Evensen, D.T.N., Boudet, H.S., Jacquet, J.B., Stedman, R.C., Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 8 (2015), 131–140.
9. [10] Considine, T.J., Watson, R., Blumsack, S., The Economic Impacts of the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play: An update. 2010, The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering.
10. [11] Cotton, M., Rattle, I., Van Alstine, J., Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 73 (2014), 427–438.
11. [12] DECC, New office to look at community benefits for shale gas projects (Press Release), 20 March. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-office-to-look-at-community-benefits-forshale-gas-projects, 2013.
12. [13] Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A., Introduction: can we know the risks we face?. Risk and Culture, 1982, University of California Press, 1–15 Chapter 1.
13. [14] Evensen, D.T., Clarke, C.E., Stedman, R.C., A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4:1 (2014), 65–77.
14. [15] Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B., How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 9:2 (1978), 127–152.
15. [16] Fitzgerald, T., Evaluating split estates in oil and gas leasing. Land Econ. 86 (2010), 294–312.
16. [17] Freudenburg, W.R., Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general public: expertise and error in the assessment of risks. Krimsky, S., Golding, D., (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, 1992, Praeger, Westport, CT, 250–259.
17. [18] Freudenburg, W.R., Pastor, S.K., Public responses to technological risks: toward a sociological perspective. Sociol. Q., 1992, 389–412.
18. [19] Fry, M., Briggle, A., Kincaid, J., Fracking and environmental (in)justice in a Texas city. Ecol. Econ. 117 (2015), 97–107.
19. [20] Gross, A., The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Publ. Underst. Sci. 3:3 (1994), 3–23.
20. [21] Heberlein, T.A., Navigating Environmental Attitudes. 2012, Oxford University Press.
21. [23] Ivacko, T., Horner, D., Fracking as a Community Iissue in Michigan. 2014, Michigan Public Policy Survey, 1–14 Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2446525 (accessed on 06.01.16).
22. [24] Jacquet, J., Stedman, R.C., Emergence of landowner coalitions in Marcellus Shale. Rural Soc. Stud. 26:1 (2011), 62–91.
23. [25] Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., Fracking in the UK press: threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Publ. Underst. Sci. 23 (2014), 348–363.
24. [26] Kasperson, R., The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework. Krimsky, S., Golding, D., (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, 1992, Praeger, Westport, CT, 153–178.
25. [27] Kinnaman, T.C., The economic impact of shale gas extraction: a review of existing studies. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1243–1249.
26. [28] Kriesky, J., Goldstein, B., Zell, K., Beach, S., Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy 58 (2013), 228–236.
27. [29] Kromer, M., Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in three Marcellus Shale states. Issues Energy Environ. Policy 20 (2015), 1–12.
28. [30] LaChapelle, E., Montpetit, E., Public opinion on hydraulic fracturing in the province of Quebec: a comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania. Issues Energy Environ. Policy 17 (2014), 1–21.
29. [31] Peters, H.P., From information to attitudes? Thoughts on the relationship between knowledge about science and technology and attitudes toward technology. Dierkes, M., von Grote, C., (eds.) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, 2000, Harwood, Amsterdam, 265–286.
30. [32] S. O'Hara, M. Humphrey, J. Andersson, R. Jaspal, B. Nerlich, W. Knight, Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: has Balcombe bottomed out? http://www.scribd.com/doc/131787519/public-perceptions-of-shalegas-in-the-UK-September-2014-pdf, 2014.
31. [33] Miller, S., Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Publ. Underst. Sci. 10 (2001), 115–120.
32. [34] Muehlenbachs, L.A., The housing market impacts of shale gas development. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:12 (2015), 3633–3659.
33. [35] Rahm, B.G., Riha, S.J., Evolving shale gas management: water resource risks, impacts, and lessons learned. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 16:6 (2014), 1400–1412.
34. [36] Rayner, S., Cultural theory and risk analysis. Krimsky, S., Golding, D., (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, 1992, Praeger, Westport, CT, 83–116.
35. [37] Renn, O., Jaeger, C., Rosa, E., Webler, T., The rational actor paradigm in risk theories: analysis and critique. Cohen, M., (eds.) Risk in the Modern Age: Social Theory, Science, and Environmental Decision-Making, 2000, St. Martin's Press, New York, 35–61.
36. [38] Royal Society, Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing. 2012, The Royal Society, London.
37. [39] Schafft, K.A., Borlu, Y., Glenna, L., The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity?. Rural Sociol. 78:2 (2013), 143–166.
38. [42] Slovic, P., The Perception of Risk. 2000, Earthscan Publications.
39. [43] Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. Slovic, P., (eds.) The Perception of Risk, 2000, Earthscan Publications, Sterling, VA, 32–50.
40. [44] Slovic, P., Finucanse, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality?. Risk Anal. 24:2 (2004), 311–322.
41. [45] Sovacool, B., Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37 (2014), 249–264.
42. [46] Stedman, R.C., Jacquet, J.B., Filteau, M.R., Willits, F.K., Brasier, K.J., McLaughlin, D.K., Marcellus Shale Gas Development and New Boomtown Research: views of New York and Pennsylvania residents. Environ. Pract. 14:4 (2012), 382–393.
43. [47] Sturgis, P., Allum, N., Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes?. Publ. Underst. Sci. 13:1 (2004), 55–74.
44. [48] Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. 1986, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
45. [49] Theodori, G., Public perception of natural gas industry: data from the Barnett Shale. Energy Sour. Part B 7 (2012), 275–281.
46. [50] Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 1974, 185.
47. [51] Wandersman, A.H., Hallman, W.K., Are people acting irrationally? Understanding public concerns about environmental threats. Am. Psychol., 48(6), 1993, 681.
48. [52] Wagner, A., Shale gas: energy innovation in a (non-)knowledge society: a press discourse analysis. Sci. Publ. Policy 42 (2015), 273–286.
49. [53] Warner, B., Shapiro, J., Fractured, fragmented federalism: a study in fracking regulatory policy. Publius J. Federalism 43 (2013), 474–496.
50. [54] Whitmarsh, L., Nash, N., Upham, P., Lloyd, A., Verdon, J.P., Kendall, J.M., UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience: message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl. Energy 160 (2015), 419–430.
51. [55] Wilkinson, I., Social theories of risk perception: at once indispensable and insufficient?. Curr. Sociol. 49:1 (2001), 1–22.
52. [56] Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R., Curtis, S., Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Publ. Underst. Sci., 2015, 1–17 published online before print.
53. [57] Zoback, M., Kitasei, S., Copithorne, B., Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development, vol. 21, 2010, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
54. [58] Small, M.J., Stern, P.C., Bomberg, E., Christopherson, S.M., Goldstein, B.D., Israel, A.L., North, D.W., Risks and risk governance in unconventional shale gas development. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:15 (2014), 8289–8297.