Scale matters: Variation in perceptions of shale gas development across national, state, and local levels

Energy Research and Social Science

Volumn 20, Issue , 2016, Pages 14-21

  Evensen, Darrick ^a   Stedman, Rich ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Construal level theory; Proximity; Shale gas; Social representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991107048     PISSN: 22146296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.010     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. [1] Jacquet, J., Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 50 (2012), 677–688.
2. [2] Jacquet, J., Stedman, R., Perceived impacts from wind farm and natural gas development in northern Pennsylvania. Rural Sociol. 78 (2013), 450–472.
3. [3] Davis, C., Fisk, J., Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Rev. Policy Res. 31 (2014), 1–16.
4. [4] Boudet, H., Bugden, D., Zanocco, C., Maibach, E., The effect of industry activities on public support for ‘fracking’. Environ. Polit. 25 (2016), 593–612.
5. [5] Vasi, I., Walker, E., Johnson, J., Tan, H., No fracking way! Documentary film, discursive opportunity, and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010–2013. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80 (2015), 934–959.
6. [6] Olive, A., What is the fracking story in Canada?. Can. Geogr. 60 (2016), 32–45.
7. [7] Metze, T., Dodge, J., Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracking in Europe and the United States. Environ. Commun. 10 (2016), 365–379, 10.1080/17524032.1133437.
8. [8] Mazur, A., How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012. Public Underst. Sci. 25 (2016), 207–222.
9. [9] Kroepsch, A., New rig on the block: spatial policy discourse and the new suburban geography of energy production on Colorado's front range. Environ. Commun. 10 (2016), 337–351.
10. [10] Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., Fracking in the UK press: threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Underst. Sci. 23 (2014), 348–363.
11. [11] Theodori, G., Luloff, A., Willits, F., Burnett, D., Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2 (2014), 66–74.
12. [12] 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.
13. [13] Evensen, D., Clarke, C., Stedman, R., 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 (2014), 65–77.
14. [14] Bomberg, E., Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J. Environ. Policy Plann., 2015, 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053111.
15. [15] Freudenburg, W., Davidson, D., Nuclear families and nuclear risks: the effects of gender, geography, and progeny on attitudes toward a nuclear waste facility. Rural Sociol. 72 (2007), 215–243.
16. [16] Freudenburg, W., Gramling, R., Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and the Battle over Offshore Drilling. 1994, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
17. [17] McAdam, D., Boudet, H., Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005. 2012, Cambridge University Press, New York.
18. [18] Bourke, L., Economic attitudes and responses to siting hazardous waste facilities in rural Utah. Rural Sociol. 59 (1994), 485–496.
19. [19] Evensen, D., Policy decisions on shale gas development (‘fracking’): the insufficiency of science and necessity of moral thought. Environ. Values 24 (2015), 511–534.
20. [20] Vesalon, L., Cretan, R., ‘We are not the wild west’: anti-fracking protests in Romania. Environ. Polit. 24 (2015), 288–307.
21. [21] Perry, S., Development, land use, and collective trauma: the Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 34:1 (2012), 81–92.
22. [22] Jacquet, J., Stedman, R., The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 57 (2014), 1285–1304.
23. [23] Schafft, K., Biddle, C., Opportunity, ambivalence, and youth perspectives on community change in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region. Hum. Org. 74 (2015), 74–85.
24. [24] Schafft, K., Borlu, Y., Glenna, L., The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociol. 78 (2013), 143–166.
25. [25] Brasier, K., Filteau, M., McLaughlin, D., Jacquet, J., Stedman, R., et al. Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 26 (2011), 32–61.
26. [26] Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117 (2010), 440–463.
27. [27] Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32 (2012), 957–972.
28. [28] Spence, A., Pidgeon, N., Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environ. Change 20 (2010), 656–667.
29. [29] Brügger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T., Pidgeon, N., Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (2015), 1031–1037.
30. [30] Hart, P., Stedman, R., McComas, K., How the physical proximity of climate mitigation projects influences the relationship between affect and public support. J. Environ. Psychol. 43 (2015), 196–202.
31. [31] McDonald, R., Chai, H., Newell, B., Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 44 (2015), 109–118.
32. [32] Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y., Chaiken, S., Flexibility now, consistency later: psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99 (2010), 32–51.
33. [33] Cook, K., The Microfoundations of social structure: an exchange perspective. Huber, J., (eds.) Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology, 1991, Sage Publications, London, 29–45.
34. [34] Zelditch, M. Jr., Levels in the logic of macro-historical explanation. Huber, J., (eds.) Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology, 1991, Sage Publications, London, 101–106.
35. [35] Huber, J., Introduction. Huber, J., (eds.) Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology, 1991, Sage Publications, London, 6–10.
36. [36] van der Linden, S., The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41 (2015), 112–124.
37. [37] Mills, C.W., The Sociological Imagination. 1959, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
38. [38] Moscovici, S., Duveen, G., (eds.) Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology, 2001, New York University Press, New York.
39. [39] Wagner, W., Hayes, N., Everyday Discourse and Common Sense: The Theory of Social Representations. 2005, Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, UK.
40. [40] Billig, M., Studying the thinking society: social representations, rhetoric, and attitudes. Breakwell, G., Canter, D., (eds.) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, 1993, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 39–62.
41. [41] Marková, I., Dialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of the Mind. 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
42. [42] Deaux, K., Philogène, G., (eds.) Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions, 2001, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
43. [43] Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D., (eds.) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
44. [44] McKinlay, A., Potter, J., Wetherell, M., Discourse analysis and social representations. Breakwell, G., Canter, D., (eds.) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, 1993, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 134–156.
45. [45] Moscovici, S., The myth of the lonely paradigm: a rejoinder. Soc. Res. 51 (1984), 939–967.
46. [46] Doise, W., Debating social representations. Breakwell, G., Canter, D., (eds.) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, 1993, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 157–170.
47. [47] Moscovici, S., Notes towards a description of social representations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 18 (1988), 211–250.
48. [48] Stedman-Jones, S., Representation in Durkheim's masters: Kant and Renouvier. Pickering, W., (eds.) Durkheim and Representations, 2000, Routledge, London, 37–79.
49. [49] É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (and selected texts on sociology and its method), 2nd ed., in: S. Lukes (Ed.), Translated by W. Halls, The Free Press, New York, 1901/1982.
50. [50] Némedi, D., A change in ideas: collective consciousness, morphology and collective representations. Pickering, W., (eds.) Durkheim and Representations, 2000, Routledge, London, 83–97.
51. [51] Upham, P., Lis, A., Riesch, H., Stankiewicz, P., Addressing social representations in socio-technical transitions with the case of shale gas. Environ. Innovations Soc. Transitions 16 (2015), 120–141.
52. [52] U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA), Drilling Productivity Report for Key Tight Oil and Shale Gas Regions, November 2013. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/, 2013 (accessed 30.09.15).
53. [53] U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA). Annual Energy Outlook 2012. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Retrieved from: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo, 2012 (accessed 30.09.15).
54. [54] Krosnick, J., Survey research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50 (1999), 537–567.
55. [55] Krosnick, J., Presser, S., Question and questionnaire design. Marsden, P., Wright, J., (eds.) Handbook of Survey Research, 2010, Emerald Group Publishing, London, 263–314.
56. [56] Henderson, M., Wakslak, C., Fujita, K., Rohrbach, J., Construal level theory and spatial distance. Soc. Psychol. 42 (2011), 165–173.
57. [57] Ledgerwood, A., Wakslak, C., Wang, M., Differential information use for near and distant decisions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46 (2010), 638–642.
58. [58] Whitmarsh, L., Nash, N., Upham, P., Lloyd, A., Verdon, J., 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.
59. [59] O'Hara, S., Humphrey, M., Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., Poberezhskaya, M., Public Perception of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: Has Balcombe Bottomed Out?. 2014, University of Nottingham.
60. [60] UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). DECC Public Attitudes Tracker—Wave 16: Summary of key findings. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-attitudes-tracking-survey-wave-16, 2016.
61. [61] Brügger, A., Morton, T., Dessai, S., “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: a construal level theory perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 46 (2016), 125–142.