Health risk perception and shale development in the UK and US

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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boholm, Å. (2015). Anthroplogy and risk. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Bradshaw, M., & Waite, C. (2017). Learning from Lancashire: Exploring the contours of the shale gas conflict in England. Global Environmental Change, 47, 28–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 103–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casson, R. W. (1983). Schemata in cognitive anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 429–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clough, E. (2018). Environmental justice and fracking: A review. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 3. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.005
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, D., & Freudenburg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment & Behavior, 28, 302–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DECC (UK Department of Energy and Climate Change). (2017). Energy Trends: Electricity. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-statistics
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Pnas, 110, 14081–14087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Evensen, D. (2016). Ethics and ‘fracking’: A review of (the limited) moral thought on shale gas development. WIREs Water, 3(4), 575–586.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva, 48(3), 219–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the resistance. Oxford, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, D. M. (2014). Toxic uncertainties of a nuclear era: Anthropology, history, memoir. American Ethnologist, 41(3), 579–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology & Society 24(1-2), 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. D. (2013). Drilling California: A reality check on the Monterey Shale. Corvallis, OR: Post Carbon Institute.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Jacquet, J. B. (2014). Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(15), 8321–8333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, S. (2010). Sacrifice zones: The front lines of toxic chemical exposure in the United States. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lock, M. (2017). Recovering the body. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackendrick, N. (2014). More work for mother: Chemical body burdens as a maternal responsibility. Gender & Society, 28(5), 705–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. (2017b). Public perception: Distrust for fracking. In Nature Energy, 2, 17059.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. R., & Kearnes, M. (2015). Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• OGA (UK Oil and Gas Authority). (2015). Retrieved from https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2015/
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley: London.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn, O. (1999). A model for an analytic−deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 3049–3055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. W. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterfield, T., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 24, 115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonelli, J. (2014). Home rule and natural gas development in New York: Civil fracking rights. Journal of Political Ecolology, 21(1), 258–278.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, P., Webler, T., & Small, M. J. (2014). Understanding the risks of unconventional shale gas development. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 8287–8288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A., & Jones, K. (2006). The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, E., & Nordenstam, B. (1991). The perception of environmental risks among ethnically diverse groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 29–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willow, A. J. (2014). The new politics of environmental degradation: Un/expected landscapes of disempowerment and vulnerability. Journal of Political Ecology, 21, 237–257.
   Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Wylie, S. A. (2018). Fractivism: Corporate bodies and chemical bonds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar