Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Thomas, Merryn ^a   Pidgeon, Nick ^a   Evensen, Darrick ^a   Partridge, Tristan ^a   Hasell, Ariel ^a   Enders, Catherine ^a   Herr Harthorn, Barbara ^a   Bradshaw, Michael ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING; OIL SHALE; SHALE; SHALE GAS;

ETHICAL ISSUES; LOCAL ECONOMY; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; POLICY DECISIONS; PROCEDURAL JUSTICE; PUBLIC DEBATE; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SHALE GAS AND OIL;

SHALE OIL;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; FUTURE PROSPECT; HYDRAULIC FRACTURING; OIL PRODUCTION; PERCEPTION; POLICY APPROACH; SHALE GAS;

CANADA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85013466886     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.450     Document Type: Review

References (136)

1. EIA. Drilling productivity report for key tight oil and shale gas regions. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr-full.pdf. (Accessed November 12, 2015).
2. EIA. North America leads the world in production of shale gas. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13491. (Accessed February 10, 2016).
3. McGlade C, Ekins P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 2015, 517:187–190.
4. McGarr A, Bekins B, Burkardt N, Dewey J, Earle P, Ellsworth W, Ge S, Hickman S, Holland A, Majer E. Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science 2015, 347:830–831.
5. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. Project Report, June 29, 2012. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
6. Ferrar KJ, Kriesky J, Christen CL, Marshall LP, Malone SL, Sharma RK, Michanowicz DR, Goldstein BD. Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. Int J Occup Environ Health 2013, 19:104–112.
7. Jacquet JB, Stedman RC. The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. J Environ Plan Manage 2014, 57:1285–1304.
8. HEI. Strategic research agenda on the potential impacts of 21st Century oil and gas development in the Appalachian region and beyond. Health Effects Institute Special Scientific Committee on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in the Appalachian Basin. Available at: http://www.healtheffects.org/UOGD/UOGDWorkshopJul2015.html. (Accessed November 16, 2015).
9. Freudenburg WR, Rosa EA. Public Reaction to Nuclear Power: Are there Critical Masses? vol. 93. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1984.
10. Keeney RL, Von Winterfeldt D, Eppel T. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Manage Sci 1990, 36:1011–1030.
11. Wynne B. Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain. Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science; 1982.
12. Mastop J, Rietkerk M. Review of lessons learned on public perceptions and engagement from other large-scale energy technologies. M4ShaleGas—measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas. TNO-Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research: The European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; 2015.
13. Pidgeon N, Hood C, Jones D, Turner B, Gibson R. Risk perception. In: Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. London: The Royal Society; 1992, 89–134.
14. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 1993, 13:675–682.
15. Devine-Wright P, Howes Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J Environ Psychol 2010, 30:271–280.
16. Pidgeon NF, Demski C. From nuclear to renewable: energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bull At Sci 2012, 68:41–51.
17. Henwood KL, Pidgeon NF. Risk and identity futures. London: Future Identities Programme; 2014.
18. Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
19. Stirling A. Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B, eds. Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books; 2005, 218–231.
20. Bellamy R, Lezaun J. Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 2015. doi:10.1177/0963662515600965.
21. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1995.
22. Stern PC, Fineberg HC. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: US National Research Council; 1996.
23. Renn O. Risk Governance: Towards an Integrated Approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council; 2006.
24. Lis A, Braendle C, Fleischer T, Thomas M, Evensen D, Mastop J. Existing European data on public perceptions of shale gas. M4ShaleGas—measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas. TNO-Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research: The European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; 2015. Available at: http://www.m4shalegas.eu/downloads/M4ShaleGas%20-%20D17.1%20-%20Existing%20European%20data%20on%20public%20perceptions%20of%20shale%20gas%20-%20Nov.%202015.pdf. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
25. Bradshaw MJ. Integrated review of public perceptions of shale gas impacts. M4ShaleGas—measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas. TNO-Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research: The European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; 2016. Available at: http://www.m4shalegas.eu/reportsp4.html. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
26. Bradshaw MJ. Unconventional gas in the United Kingdom. In: Grafton Q, Cronshaw I, Moore M, eds. Risks, Rewards and Regulation on Unconventional Gas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
27. Jaspal R, Turner A, Nerlich B. Fracking on YouTube: exploring risks, benefits and human values. Environ Values 2014, 23:501–527.
28. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Knowing what you want: measuring labile values. In: Wallsten T, ed. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum; 1980, 117–141.
29. Pidgeon NF, Harthorn B, Satterfield T, Demski CC. Cross-national comparative commmunication and deliberation about the risks of nanotechnologies. In: Schefele D, Kahan D, Hall-Jameson K, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
30. Demski CC. Public perceptions of renewable energy technologies: challenging the notion of widespread support. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, 2011.
31. Evensen DT, Clarke CE, Stedman RC. A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J Environ Stud Sci 2014, 4:65–77.
32. Jacquet J, Stedman RC. Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York State: emerging benefits of collective natural resource management. J Rural Soc Sci 2011, 26:62–91.
33. Brasier KJ, Filteau MR, McLaughlin DK, Jacquet J, Stedman RC, Kelsey TW, Goetz SJ. 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 2011, 26:32–61.
34. Israel AL, Wong-Parodi G, Webler T, Stern PC. Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: the case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States. Energy Res SocSci 2015, 8:139–150.
35. Ladd AE. Stakeholder perceptions of socioenvironmental impacts from unconventional natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the Haynesville Shale. J Rural Soc Sci 2013, 28:56–89.
36. Hudgins A. Fracking's future in a coal mining past: subjectivity undermined. Cult Agric Food Environ 2013, 35:54–59.
37. Anderson BJ, Theodori GL. Local leaders’ perceptions of energy development in the Barnett shale. South Rural Sociol 2009, 24:113–129.
38. Schafft K, Biddle C. Opportunity, ambivalence, and youth perspectives on community change in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Region. Hum Organ 2015, 74:74–85.
39. Schafft KA, Biddle C. School and community impacts of hydraulic fracturing within Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Region, and the dilemmas of educational leadership in Gasfield Boomtowns. Peabody J Educ 2014, 89:670–682.
40. Wynveen BJ. A thematic analysis of local respondents’ perceptions of Barnett Shale energy development. J Rural Soc Sci 2011, 26:8–31.
41. Perry SL. Development, land use, and collective trauma: the Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Cult Agric Food Environ 2012, 34:81–92.
42. Evensen DT. Policy decisions on shale gas development (‘Fracking’): the insufficiency of science and necessity of moral thought. Environ Values 2015, 24:511–534.
43. Willow AJ. The new politics of environmental degradation: un/expected landscapes of disempowerment and vulnerability. J Polit Ecol 2014, 21:237–257.
44. Malin S. There's no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland. J Environ Stud Sci 2014, 4:17–27.
45. Simonelli J. Home rule and natural gas development in New York: civil fracking rights. J Polit Ecol 2014, 21:258–278.
46. Perry SL. Using ethnography to monitor the community health implications of onshore unconventional oil and gas developments: examples from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale. New Solut 2013, 23:33–53.
47. Brasier K, Davis L, Glenna L, Kelsey T, McLaughlin D, Schafft K, Babbie K, Biddle C, Delessio-Parson A, Rhubart D. The Marcellus Shale Impacts Study: Chronicling Social and Economic Change in North Central and Southwest Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: The Center for Rural Pennsylvania; 2014, 1–65.
48. Willow AJ, Zak R, Vilaplana D, Sheeley D. The contested landscape of unconventional energy development: a report from Ohio's shale gas country. J Environ Stud Sci 2014, 4:56–64.
49. Theodori GL, Willits FK, Luloff A. Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region public perceptions survey: a summary report. Huntsville, TX: Center for Rural Studies; 2012.
50. Theodori GL, Luloff A, Willits FK, Burnett DB. Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014, 2:66–74.
51. 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 2013, 58:228–236.
52. Evensen D, Jacquet JB, Clarke CE, Stedman RC. What's the ‘fracking'problem? One word can't say it all. Extract Ind Soc 2014, 1:130–136.
53. Crowe J, Ceresola R, Silva T. The influence of value orientations, personal beliefs, and knowledge about resource extraction on local leaders' positions on shale development. Rural Sociol 2015, 80:397–430.
54. Boudet H, Clarke C, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 2014, 65:57–67.
55. Stedman RC, Jacquet JB, Filteau MR, Willits FK, Brasier KJ, McLaughlin DK. Marcellus shale gas development and new boomtown research: views of New York and Pennsylvania residents. Environ Pract 2012, 14:382–393.
56. Theodori GL, Wynveen BJ, Fox WE, Burnett DB. Public perception of desalinated water from oil and gas field operations: data from Texas. Soc Nat Resour 2009, 22:674–685.
57. Pew Research Center. What Energy Boom? Half Unaware of Rise in U.S. Production: Continued Support for Keystone XL Pipeline. Washington, D.C.:Pew Research Center; 2013.
58. Borick CP, Rabe BG, Lachapelle E. Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), University of Michigan; 2014.
59. Brown E, Hartman K, Borick CP, Rabe BG, Ivacko TM. The national surveys on energy and environment public opinion on fracking: perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania. Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) Survey Report, Climate Policy Options; 2013.
60. Rabe BG, Borick CP. Fracking for natural gas: public opinion on state policy options. Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), Survey Report: Fracking; 2011.
61. Clarke C, Boudet H, Bugden D. Fracking in the American mind: Americans’ views on hydraulic fracturing in September, 2012. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University; 2012.
62. Davis C, Fisk JM. Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Rev Policy Res 2014, 31:1–16.
63. Ivacko TM, Horner D. Fracking as a Community Issue in Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan; 2014.
64. Brooks S. UT energy poll shows divide on fracking. Available at: http://news.utexas.edu/2013/04/09/ut-energy-poll-shows-divide-on-fracking. (Accessed November 24, 2015).
65. Jacquet JB. Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 2012, 50:677–688.
66. Lachapelle E, Montpetit É. Public opinion on hydraulic fracturing in the province of Quebec: a comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania. In: Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan; 2014.
67. Theodori GL. Perception of the natural gas industry and engagement in individual civic actions. J Rural Soc Sci 2013, 28:122–134.
68. Jacquet JB, Stedman RC. Perceived impacts from wind farm and natural gas development in Northern Pennsylvania. Rural Sociol 2013, 78:450–472.
69. Theodori GL. Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. South Rural Sociol 2009, 24:97–117.
70. Kromer M. Public Perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in three Marcellus Shale States. Issues Energy Environ Policy 2015, 20:1–12.
71. Clarke CE, Hart PS, Schuldt JP, Evensen DT, Boudet HS, Jacquet JB, Stedman RC. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 2015, 81:131–140.
72. Theodori GL. Public perception of the natural gas industry: data from the Barnett Shale. Energy Sources Part B Econ Plann Policy 2012, 7:275–281.
73. Council of Canadians. Fracking poll results. Available at: http://canadians.org/media/water/2012/06-Feb-12-backgrounder.html. (Accessed September 1, 2015).
74. Lachapelle E, Montpetit É, Gauvin JP. Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: the role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Stud J 2014, 42:674–697.
75. Baldassare M, Bonner D, Petek S, Shrestha J. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. San Francisco, CA:Public Policy Institute of California; 2014.
76. Corporate Research Associates. Slight majority of nova scotians opposed to hydrofracking in the province; 2013 Available at: http://cra.ca/slight-majority-of-nova-scotians-opposed-to-hydrofracking-in-the-province/. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
77. Schafft KA, Borlu Y, Glenna L. The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociol 2013, 78:143–166.
78. Mallinson DJ. Upstream influence: the positive impact of PAC contributions on Marcellus Shale roll call votes in Pennsylvania. Interest Groups Advoc 2014, 3:293–314.
79. Mazur A. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012? Public Underst Sci 2016, 25:207–222.
80. Schafft KA, Glenna LL, Green B, Borlu Y. Local impacts of unconventional gas development within Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale Region: gauging boomtown development through the perspectives of educational administrators. Soc Nat Resour 2014, 27:389–404.
81. Brasier KJ, Davis L, Glenna L, Kelsey TW, McLaughlin DK, Schafft K, Babbie K, Biddle C, DeLessio-Parson A, Rhubart D, et al. Communities experiencing shale gas development. In: Hefley WE, Wang Y, eds. Economics of Unconventional Shale Gas Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015, 149–178.
82. Kasperson RE, Ram BJ. The public acceptance of new energy technologies. Daedalus 2013, 142:90–96.
83. Jacquet JB. Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. Environ Sci Technol 2014, 48:8321–8333.
84. Sovacool BK. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014, 37:249–264.
85. Lerner M. Opportunity, risk, and public acceptability: the question of shale gas exploitation in Québec. Issues Energy Environ Policy 2015, 16:1–29.
86. McCright AM. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul Environ 2010, 32:66–87.
87. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and Society, 3rd Report. London:House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee; 2000.
88. Harthorn B, Shearer C, Rogers J. Risk perception, public participation, and sustainable global development of nanotechnologies. In: Parker RA, Appelbaum RP, eds. Can Emerging Technologies Make a Difference in Development? New York: Routledge; 2012.
89. Graham JD, Rupp JA, Schenk O. Unconventional gas development in the USA: exploring the risk perception issues. Risk Anal 2015, 35:1770–1788.
90. Christopherson S. Risks beyond the well pad: the economic footprint of shale gas development in the US. In: Finkel ML, ed. The Human and Environmental Impact of Fracking: How Fracturing Shale for Gas Affects Us and Our World. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger; 2015.
91. Cortese CF, Jones B. The sociological analysis of boom towns. Western Sociol Rev 1977, 8:76–90.
92. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125–139.
93. Boholm Å, Löfstedt R. Facility Siting: Risk Power and Identity in Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan; 1994.
94. Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C. The ‘Social Gap’ in wind farm policy siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 2005, 14:460–477.
95. Petrova MA. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:575–601.
96. Dietz T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013, 110(suppl 3):14081–14087.
97. Wynne B. Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and science in a time of expert dogma and denial. In: Chilvers J, Kearns M, eds. Remaking Participation. London: Routledge; 2016, 99–120.
98. Broderick J, Anderson K, Wood R, Gilbert P, Sharmina M, Footitt A, Glynn S, Nicholls F. Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts. A report commissioned by the co-operative and undertaken by researchers at the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester; 2011.
99. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 2006, 77:73–95.
100. Leiserowitz AA. American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal 2005, 25:1433–1442.
101. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 2012, 32:957–972.
102. Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P, Morton TA, Pidgeon NF. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Change 2015, 5:1031–1037.
103. Pidgeon NF, Demski CC, Butler C, Parkhill KA, Spence A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014, 111:13606–13613.
104. Evensen D. Ethics and ‘fracking’: a review of (the limited) moral thought on shale gas development. WIREs Water 2016, 3:575–586.
105. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, O'Riordan T. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Anal 2005, 25: 467-479.
106. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1981.
107. Breakwell G. The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
108. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 2003, 23:961–972.
109. Hargreaves I, Lewis J, Speers T. Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council; 2003.
110. Mobbs P. “Frackademics”—a study of the relationships between academia, the fossil fuels industry and public agencies. A report commissioned by Talk Fracking and produced by Paul Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations. Available at: http://www.talkfracking.org/frackademics/frackademics-report/#introduction. (Accessed November 20, 2015).
111. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 2011, 14:147–174.
112. Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill KA, Spence A, Pidgeon NF. Public values for energy system change. Glob Environ Change 2015, 34:59–69.
113. Greenberg M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3242–3249.
114. McGowan F, Sauter R. Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk Study for the Research Councils. Brighton, UK: Sussex Energy Group, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex; 2005.
115. Vidic R, Brantley S, Vandenbossche J, Yoxtheimer D, Abad J. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 2013, 340:1235009.
116. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1982.
117. Kahan D. Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Roeser S, Peterson M, eds. Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. London: Springer; 2012, 725–760.
118. O'Hara S, Humphrey M, Andersson-Hudson J, Knight W. Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: From positive to negative; 2016. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131787519/public-perceptions-of-shale-gas-in-the-UK-September-2015-pdf. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
119. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 1996, 28:302–339.
120. Henwood KL, Pidgeon NF. Gender, ethical voices and UK nuclear energy policy in the post-Fukushima era. In: Taebi B, Roeser S, eds. The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
121. Satterfield TA, Mertz C, Slovic P. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal 2004, 24:115–129.
122. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the 'white male' effect. Health Risk Soc 2000, 2:159–172.
123. Cotton M, Rattle I, Van Alstine J. Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 2014, 73:427–438.
124. Bomberg E. Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J Environ Policy Plann 2015, 1-17. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053111.
125. TNS-BMRB. Public engagement with shale gas and oil: a report on findings from public dialogue workshops; 2014. Available at: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publicengagementwithshalegasandoil.pdf. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
126. Williams L, Macnaghten P, Davies R, Curtis S. Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Underst Sci 2015, pii:0963662515595159.
127. DECC. DECC Public Attitudes Tracker—Wave 16: Summary of Key Findings. London, UK: Department of Energy and Climate Change; 2016.
128. Whitmarsh L, Nash N, Upham P, Lloyd A, Verdon JP, 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 2015, 160:419–430.
129. Tobler C, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Clim Change 2012, 114:189–209.
130. Wiersma B, Devine-Wright P. Public engagement with offshore renewable energy: a critical review. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:493–507.
131. IEA. Oil market report. International Energy Agency; 2015. Available at: https://www.iea.org/media/omrreports/fullissues/2015-09-11.pdf. (Accessed November 12, 2015).
132. Warner NR, Christie CA, Jackson RB, Vengosh A. Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47:11849–11857.
133. Frohlich C. Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:13934–13938.
134. Ellsworth WL. Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 2013, 341:1225942.
135. Pidgeon NF, Butler C. Risk analysis and climate change. Environ Polit 2009, 18:670–688.
136. Batel S, Devine-Wright P. Energy colonialism and the role of the global in local responses to new energy infrastructures in the UK: a critical and exploratory empirical analysis. Antipode 2017, 49:3–22. doi:10.1111/anti.12261.