Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK

Nature Energy

Volumn 2, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Thomas, Merryn ^a   Partridge, Tristan ^b   Harthorn, Barbara Herr ^b   Pidgeon, Nick ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXTRACTION; FRACTURE; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; HYDRAULIC FRACTURING;

CROSS-NATIONAL; GAS DEVELOPMENT; HEALTH EFFECTS; PERCEIVED RISK; POTENTIAL IMPACTS; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SHALE GAS AND OIL; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS;

SHALE GAS;

EID: 85019167638     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20587546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.54     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. McGlade, C., & Ekins, P. The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting Global Warming to 2C. Nature 517, 187-190 (2015).
2. McGarr, A., et al. Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science 347, 830-831 (2015).
3. Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing (Royal Society, 2012).
4. Jacquet, J. B., & Stedman, R. C. The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57, 1285-1304 (2014).
5. Henwood, K. L., & Pidgeon, N. F. in Communicating Risk (eds Crichton, J., Candlin, C. N., & Firkins, A. S.) 155-170 (Palgrave MacMillan, 2016).
6. Thomas, M. J., et al. Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada. WIREs Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.450 (2017).
7. North, D.W., Stern, P. C., Webler, T., & Field, P. Public and stakeholder participation for managing and reducing the risks of shale gas development. Environ. Sci. Tech. 48, 8388-8396 (2014).
8. Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions (Resources for the Future, 2002).
9. Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, P. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academies, 1996).
10. Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. F. Moving engagement upstream''?. Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Pub. Und. Sci. 16, 346-364 (2007).
11. Stirling, A. in Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement (eds Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Wynne, B.) 218-231 (Zed Books, 2005).
12. Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14081-14087 (2013).
13. Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. F. Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 59-69 (2015).
14. Pidgeon, N. F., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., & Spence, A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13606-13613 (2014).
15. Boholm, Å., & Löfstedt, R. Facility Siting: Risk Power and Identity in Land Use Planning (Earthscan, 2004).
16. Upham, P., Lis, A., Riesch, H., & Stankiewicz, P. Addressing social representations in socio-Technical transitions with the case of shale gas. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 16, 120-141 (2015).
17. Partridge, T., et al. Seeing futures now: emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 1-12 (2017).
18. 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, 119-132 (2016).
19. Israel, A. L., Wong-Parodi, G., Webler, T., & Stern, P. C. Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: the case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8, 139-150 (2015).
20. Whitmarsh, L., et al. 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, 419-430 (2015).
21. 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, 65-77 (2014).
22. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12, 215-232 (1992).
23. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., & Gibson, R. in Risk-Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group (ed.Warner, F.) 89-134 (Royal Society, 1992).
24. Ferrar, K. J., et al. 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 19, 104-112 (2013).
25. Brasier, K. J., 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, 32-61 (2011).
26. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32, 957-972 (2012).
27. Greenberg, M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37, 3242-3249 (2009).
28. Barvosa, E. Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5, 497-507 (2015).
29. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat. Nanotech. 4, 752-758 (2009).
30. Harthorn, B., Shearer, C., & Rogers, J. in Quantum Engagements: Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies (eds Zülsdorf, T. B. et al.) 75-89 (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011).
31. Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R., & Curtis, S. Framing fracking': exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Publ. Und. Sci. 26, 89-104 (2017).
32. Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., & Simmons, P. Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Publ. Und. Sci. 17, 145-169 (2008).
33. Sangaramoorthy, T., et al. Place-based perceptions of the impacts of fracking along the Marcellus Shale. Soc. Sci. Med. 151, 27-37 (2016).
34. Bradshaw, M. J. in Risks, Rewards and Regulation of Unconventional Gas (eds Grafton, Q., Cronshaw, I., & Moore, M.) 167-196 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).
35. Paydar, N., et al. The effect of community reinvestment funds on local acceptance of unconventional gas development. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 5, 131-156 (2016).
36. Cass, N., Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 12, 255-275 (2010).
37. Boudet, H., Bugden, D., Zanocco, C., & Maibach, E. The effect of industry activities on public support for fracking'. Environ. Policy 25, 593-612 (2016).
38. Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 34, 405-430 (2009).
39. Kriesky, J., Goldstein, B. D., Zell, K., & Beach, S. Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy 58, 228-236 (2013).
40. Reiner, D., et al. American exceptionalism?. Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2093-2098 (2006).
41. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotech. 4, 95-98 (2009).
42. Jasanoff, S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton Univ. Press, 2005).
43. Lipset, S. M. American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword (WW Norton and Company, 1996).
44. Demski, C. C., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK. Energy Policy 66, 369-378 (2014).
45. Baron, J., & Spranca, M. Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70, 1-16 (1997).
46. Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8-18 (2012).
47. Renn, O. in The Social Amplification of Risk (eds Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. K., & Slovic, P.) 374-401 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).
48. Carlisle, J. E., Feezell, J. T., Michaud, K. E., Smith, E. R., & Smith, L. The public's trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Publ. Und. Sci. 19, 514-527 (2010).
49. Brasier, K., et al. Risk perceptions of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Environ. Pract. 15, 108-122 (2013).
50. Jacquet, J., & Stedman, R. C. Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York State: emerging benefits of collective natural resource management. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 26, 62-91 (2011).
51. Cotton, M. Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environ. Plan. A 47, 1944-1962 (2015).
52. Anderson, B. J., & Theodori, G. L. Local leaders' perceptions of energy development in the Barnett shale. South. Rural Sociol. 24, 113-129 (2009).
53. Conti, J., Satterfield, T., & Harthorn, B. H. Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent US nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 31, 1734-1748 (2011).
54. Bellamy, R., & Lezaun, J. Crafting a public for geoengineering. Publ. Und. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662515600965 (2015).
55. Clarke, C. E., et al. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81, 131-140 (2015).
56. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer, 1995).
57. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (National Academies, 2008).
58. Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, G. M., & Leighninger, M. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
59. Pidgeon, N. F., & Henwood, K. L. in Handbook of Data Analysis (eds Hardy, M., & Bryman, A.) 625-648 (Sage, 2004).
60. Pidgeon, N. F., & Demski, C. C. From nuclear to renewable: energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bull. Atom. Sci. 68, 41-51 (2012).