298
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Health risk perception and shale development in the UK and US

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 35-56 | Received 17 Sep 2018, Accepted 27 Mar 2019, Published online: 23 Apr 2019

References

  • Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.
  • Besley, J. C., Kramer, V. L., Yao, Q., & Toumey, C. (2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30(2), 209–235.
  • Boholm, Å. (2015). Anthroplogy and risk. London: Routledge.
  • Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). ‘Fracking’ controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57–67.
  • Bowen, G. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.
  • Bradshaw, M. (2016). Integrated review of public perceptions of shale gas impacts. Project report D20.1. European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program: M4ShaleGas Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.m4shalegas.eu/reportsp4.html
  • Bradshaw, M., & Waite, C. (2017). Learning from Lancashire: Exploring the contours of the shale gas conflict in England. Global Environmental Change, 47, 28–36.
  • Bröer, C., Moerman, G., Spruijt, P., & van Poll, R. (2014). Risk policies and risk perceptions: A comparative study of environmental health risk policy and perception in six European countries. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4), 525–542.
  • Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 103–124.
  • Casson, R. W. (1983). Schemata in cognitive anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 429–462.
  • CCST. (2015). Well stimulation technologies and their past, present, and potential future use in California. California Council on Science and Technology, Sacramento, California, No. 1.
  • Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–172). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Clarke, C., Hart, P., Schuldt, J., Evensen, D., Boudet, H., Jacquet, J., & Stedman, R. (2015). Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy, 81, 131–140.
  • Clough, E. (2018). Environmental justice and fracking: A review. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 3. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.005
  • Conti, J., Satterfield, T., & Harthorn, B. H. (2011). Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent US nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 31(11), 1734–1748.
  • Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). Nanotechnologies and upstream public engagement: Dilemmas, debates and prospects?. In B. Herr Harthorn & J. Mohr (Eds.), The Social Life of Nanotechnology (pp. 169–194). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Davidson, D. (2018). Evaluating the effects of living with contamination from the lens of trauma: A case study of fracking development in Alberta, Canada. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 196–209.
  • Davidson, D., & Freudenburg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment & Behavior, 28, 302–339.
  • Davies, S., Macnaghten, P., & Kearnes, M. (Eds.). (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham, UK: Durham University.
  • Dawson, I., Johnson, J., & Luke, M. (2013). Helping individuals to understand synergistic risks: An assessment of message contents depicting mechanistic and probabilistic concepts. Risk Analysis, 33(5), 851–861.
  • DECC (UK Department of Energy and Climate Change). (2017). Energy Trends: Electricity. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-statistics
  • Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Pnas, 110, 14081–14087.
  • Eaton, E., & Kinchy, A. (2016). Quiet voices in the fracking debate: Ambivalence, nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania). Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 22–30.
  • EIA (US Energy Information Administration). (2018). United States remains the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons. Retreived from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36292
  • Evensen, D. (2016). Ethics and ‘fracking’: A review of (the limited) moral thought on shale gas development. WIREs Water, 3(4), 575–586.
  • Evensen, D., Stedman, R., O’Hara, S., Humphrey, M., & Andersson-Hudson, J. (2017). Variation in beliefs about ‘fracking’between the UK and US. Environmental Research Letters, 12(12), 124004.
  • Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48(3), 219–238.
  • Finkel, M. L., & Hays, J. (2015). Environmental and health impacts of ‘fracking’: Why epidemiological studies are necessary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(3), 221–222.
  • Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.
  • Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the resistance. Oxford, England: Polity Press.
  • Goldstein, D. M. (2014). Toxic uncertainties of a nuclear era: Anthropology, history, memoir. American Ethnologist, 41(3), 579–584.
  • Guston, D. H., Fisher, E., Grunwald, A., Owen, R., Swierstra, T., & van der Burg, S. (2014). Responsible innovation: Motivations for a new journal. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 1–8.
  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology & Society 24(1-2), 93–109.
  • Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2016). Interpretive environmental risk research: Affect, discourses and change. In J. Crichton, C. Candlin, & A. Firkins (Eds.), Communicating risk: Communicating in professions and organizations (pp. 155–170). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Henwood, K. L., Parkhill, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2008). Science, technology and risk perception: From gender differences to the effects made by gender. Equal Opportunities International, 27, 662–676.
  • Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., & O’riordan, T. (2007). On evaluating the GM Nation? Public debate about the commercialization of transgenic crops in Britain. New Genetics & Society, 25(3), 265–288.
  • Hughes, J. D. (2013). Drilling California: A reality check on the Monterey Shale. Corvallis, OR: Post Carbon Institute.
  • Irwin, A., Simmons, P., & Walker, G. (1999). Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards. Environment and Planning, 31(7), 1311–1326.
  • Jacquet, J. B. (2014). Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(15), 8321–8333.
  • Kiparsky, M., & Foley Hein, J. (2013). Regulation of hydraulic fracturing in California: A wastewater and water quality perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley Law, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.
  • Larrea-Killinger, C., Munoz, A., Mascaro, J., Zafra, E., & Porta, M. (2017). Discourses on the toxic effects of internal chemical contamination in Catalonia, Spain. Medical Anthropology, 36(2), 125–140.
  • Lehoux, P., Williams-Jones, B., Miller, F. A., Fishman, J., Yivon, M., & Vachon, P. (2014). Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: A study protocol describing a multi-media-based deliberative methods. Implementation Science, 9, 81. Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/9/1/81
  • Lerner, S. (2010). Sacrifice zones: The front lines of toxic chemical exposure in the United States. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Lock, M. (2017). Recovering the body. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46(1), 1–14.
  • Lorenzoni, I., Leiserowitz, A., de Franca Doria, M., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Cross‐National comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and “climate change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. Journal of Risk Research, 9(3), 265–281.
  • Mackendrick, N. (2014). More work for mother: Chemical body burdens as a maternal responsibility. Gender & Society, 28(5), 705–728.
  • Macnaghten, P. (2017a). Focus groups as anticipatory methodology: A contribution from science and technology studies towards socially resilient governance. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation and Practice (pp. 343–363). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Macnaghten, P. (2017b). Public perception: Distrust for fracking. In Nature Energy, 2, 17059.
  • Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. R., & Kearnes, M. (2015). Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1–19.
  • OGA (UK Oil and Gas Authority). (2015). Retrieved from https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2015/
  • Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley: London.
  • Partridge, T., Thomas, M., Harthorn, B. H., Pidgeon, N., Hasell, A., Stevenson, L., & Enders, C. (2017). Seeing futures now: Emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems. Global Environmental Change, 42, 1–12.
  • Perry, S. (2013). Using ethnography to monitor the community health implications of onshore unconventional oil and gas developments: Examples from Pennsylvania‘s Marcellus Shale. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 23, 33–53.
  • Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., & Spence, A. (2014). Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13606–13613.
  • Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95–98.
  • Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change, 3, 451–457.
  • Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191–210.
  • Prüss-Ustün, A., Bartram, J., Clasen, T., Colford, J. M., Cumming, O., Curtis, V., … Cairncross, S. (2014). Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in low- and middle-income settings: A retrospective analysis of data from 145 countries. Tropical Medicine and International Health, 19(8), 894–905.
  • Renn, O. (1999). A model for an analytic−deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 3049–3055.
  • Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. W. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
  • Sangaramoorthy, T., Jamison, A. M., Boyle, M. D., Payne-Sturges, D. C., Sapkota, A., Milton, D. K., & Wilson, S. M. (2016). Place-based perceptions of the impacts of fracking along the Marcellus Shale. Social Science & Medicine, 151, 27–37.
  • Satterfield, T., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 24, 115–129.
  • Saunders, P. J., McCoy, D., Goldstein, R., Saunders, A. T., & Munroe, A. (2018). A review of the public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development. Environ Geochem Health, 40, 1–57.
  • Simonelli, J. (2014). Home rule and natural gas development in New York: Civil fracking rights. Journal of Political Ecolology, 21(1), 258–278.
  • Stern, P., Webler, T., & Small, M. J. (2014). Understanding the risks of unconventional shale gas development. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 8287–8288.
  • Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A., & Jones, K. (2006). The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. London: Demos.
  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.
  • Stirling, A. (2007). Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO Reports, 8(4), 309–315. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk
  • Thomas, M., Partridge, T., Harthorn, B. H., & Pidgeon, N. (2017). Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK. Nature Energy, 2, 17054.
  • Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N., Evensen, D., Partridge, T., Hasell, A., Enders, C., … Bradshaw, M. (2017). Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada. WIRES Climate Change, e450. doi:10.1002/wcc.450
  • Vaughan, E., & Nordenstam, B. (1991). The perception of environmental risks among ethnically diverse groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 29–60.
  • Williams, L., Macnaghten, P., Davies, R. J., & Curtis, S. (2015). Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), 89–104.
  • Willow, A. J. (2014). The new politics of environmental degradation: Un/expected landscapes of disempowerment and vulnerability. Journal of Political Ecology, 21, 237–257.
  • Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
  • Wylie, S. A. (2018). Fractivism: Corporate bodies and chemical bonds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  • Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, missing the music? Community Genetics, 1, 211–220.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.