Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:28:12.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emerging Risk Communication Challenges Associated with Shale Gas Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher E Clarke ,
Darrick T.N. Evensen ,
Jeffrey Jacquet  and
Richard C. Stedman
Christopher E Clarke
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Department of Communication
Darrick T.N. Evensen
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Jeffrey Jacquet
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Rural Studies, South Dakota State University
Richard C. Stedman
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 424 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United States Energy Information Administration, “What is Shale Gas and Why Is It Important?”, 2012, available on the Internet at <http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm> (last assessed on 07 August 2012).

2 Fiona Harvey, “Gas ‘Fracking’ Gets Green Light”, 2012, available on the Internet at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/17/gas-fracking-gets-green-light> (last assessed on 07 August 2012).

3 Cable News Network, “Poland Has Great “Fracking” Potential with Shale Gas Reserves”, 2012, available on the Internet at <http://articles.cnn.com/2012–05–28/world/world_europe_eye-on-polandshale_1_shale-gas-fracking-natural-gas?_s=PM:EUROPE> (last assessed on 07 August 2012).

4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program”, 2011, available on the Internet at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html> (last assessed on 07 August 2012).

5 Steve Hargreaves, “Obama Tightens Oil and Gas Drilling Regulations”, 2012, available on the Internet at <http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/18/news/economy/drilling-regulations/index.htm> (last assessed on 07 August 2012).

6 Cable News Network, “Vermont First State to Ban Fracking”, 2012, available on the Internet at <http://articles.cnn.com/2012–05–17/us/us_vermont-fracking_1_fracking-shale-natural-gas?_s=PM:US> (last accessed 07 August 2012).

7 David Castelvecchi, “France Becomes First Country to Ban Extraction of Natural Gas By Fracking”, 2011, available on the Internet at <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/30/france-becomes-first-country-to-ban-extraction-of-natural-gas-byfracking/> (last accessed 07 August 2012).

8 Brasier, Kathryn J., Filteau, Matthew R., McLaughlin, Diane K., Jacquet, Jeffrey, Stedman, Richard C., Kelsey, Timothy W., and Goetz, Stephan J., “Residents’ Perceptions of Community and Environmental Impacts from Development of Natural Gas in the Marcellus Shale: A Comparison of Pennsylvania and New York Cases”, 26 Journal of Rural Social Studies (2011), pp.32–61 Google Scholar.

9 Jeffrey Jacquet, “Energy Boomtowns and Natural Gas: Implications for Marcellus Shale Local Governments and Rural Communities”, 2009, available on the Internet at <http://nercrd.psu.edu/publications/rdppapers/rdp43.pdf> (last accessed 07 August 2012).

10 Besley, John C., “Review: Current Research on Public perceptions of Nanotechnology”, 3 Emerging Health Threats Journal (2010), pp. e8–e15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11 Besley, John C., “Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making?”, 32 Risk Analysis (2011), pp.25–38 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 de Best-Waldhober, Marjolein, Daamen, Dancker, and Faaij, Andre, “Informed and Uninformed Public Opinions on CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies in the Netherlands”, 3 International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (2009), pp.322–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 McComas, Katherine A., “Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research: 1996–2005”, 11 Journal of Health Communication (2006), pp.75–91 et sqq., at p. 76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

14 Bier, V.M.., “On The State of the Art: Risk Communication to The Public”, 71 Reliability Engineering and System Safety (2011), pp.139–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Haut, Richard C., Williams, Tom, Burnett, David, and Theodori, Gene, “Balancing Environmental Tradeoffs, Societal Issues, and Energy Production”, 60 Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions (2010), pp.739–748 Google Scholar.

16 Gurabardhi, Zamira, Gutteling, Jan M., and Kuttschreuter, Margot, “The Development of Risk Communication: An Empirical Analysis of the Literature in the Field”, 25 Science Communication (2004), pp.323–349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Chess, Caron and Purcell, Kristen, “Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?”, 33 Environmental Science & Technology (1999), pp.2685–2691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Rowe, Gene and Frewer, Lynn J., “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,” 25 Science, Technology, and Human Values (2000), pp. 3–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Delli-Carpini, Michael X., Cook, Fay Lomax, and Jacobs, Lawrence R., “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature, 7 Annual Review of Political Science (2004), pp.315–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Delgado, Ana, Kjolberg, Kamilla Lein, and Wickson, Fern, “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology”, 20 Public Understanding of Science (2011), pp.826–845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 McComas, Katherine A., “Even The ‘Best Laid’ Plans Go Wrong: Strategic Risk Communication for New and Emerging Risks”, 5 EMBO Reports (2011), pp. S61–S65Google Scholar.

22 Haut, Williams, Burnett and Theodori, “Balancing Environmental Tradeoffs, Societal Issues, and Energy Production”, supra, note 15 et sqq., at p. 746.

23 Richard Stedman, Fern K. Willits, Kathryn Brasier, Matthew R. Filteau et al. Natural Gas Development: Views of New York and Pennsylvania Residents in the Marcellus Shale Region, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Community and Regional Development Institute Research and Policy Brief #39, 2011).

24 Delgado, Lein Kjolberg and Wickson, “Public Engagement Coming of Age”, supra, note 20.

25 Shmueli, Deborah, Elliott, Michael, and Kaufman, Sanda, “Frame Changes and the Management of Intractable Conflicts”, 24 Conflict Resolution Quarterly (2006), pp.207–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Klemow, Kenneth, “Marcellus Gas: Taking Advantage of a Teachable Moment”, Winter 2012 Journal of the Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Educators (2012), pp. 1–5 Google Scholar.

27 Kargbo, David M., Wilhelm, Ron G., and Campbell, David J., “Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities”, 44 Environmental Science & Technology (2010), pp.5679–5684 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

28 Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder, “Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop”, 477 Nature (2011), pp.271–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Kenneth M. Klemow and Ned Fetcher, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Marcellus Shale”, 2011, available on the Internet at <http://energy.wilkes.edu/PDFFiles/Reports/IEER.GHG.V3.pdf> (last accessed 07 August 2012).

30 Kahan, Dan M., Braman, Donald, Slovic, Paul, Gastil, John and Cohen, Geoffrey, “Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology”, 4 Nature Nanotechnology (2008), pp.87–90 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

31 Besley, “Review: Current Research on Public perceptions of Nanotechnology”, supra, note 10.

32 Jacquet, “Energy Boomtowns and Natural Gas”, supra, note 9.

33 Brasier, Filteau, McLaughlin et al., “Residents’ Perceptions of Community and Environmental Impacts from Development of Natural Gas in the Marcellus Shale”, supra, note 8.

34 Jeffrey B. Jacquet, Landowner Attitudes and Perceptions of Impact from Wind and Natural Gas Development in Northern Pennsylvania: Implications for Energy Landscapes in Rural America,(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2012).

35 Stedman, Willits, Brasier, Filteau et al. Natural Gas Development, supra, note 23.

36 Theodori, Gene L., “Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional Natural Gas Development”, 24 Southern Rural Sociology (2009), pp.97–117 Google Scholar.

37 Brasier, Filteau, McLaughlin et al., “Residents’ Perceptions of Community and Environmental Impacts from Development of Natural Gas in the Marcellus Shale”, supra, note 8.

38 Brown, Ralph B., Dorius, Shawn F., and Krannich, Richard S., “The Boom-Bust-Recovery Cycle: Dynamics of Change in Community Satisfaction and Social Integration in Delta, Utah”, 70 Rural Sociology (2005), pp.28–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Evensen, Darrick and Clarke, Christopher, “Efficacy Information in Media Coverage of Infectious Disease Risks: An Ill Predicament?”, 34 Science Communication (2012), pp.392–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Hart, Philip S. and Leiserowitz, Anthony, “Finding the Teachable Moment: An Analysis of Information-Seeking Behavior on Global Warming related Websites during the Release of The Day After Tomorrow”, 3 Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture (2009), pp.355–366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 McLeod, Jack M., Scheufele, Dietram A., and Moy, Patricia, “Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation”, 16 Political Communication (1999), pp.315–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Tichenor, Philip J., Donohue, George A., and Olien, Clarence N., Community Conflict and the Press (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage)Google Scholar.

43 Griffin, Robert J. and Dunwoody, Sharon, “Community Structure and Science Framing of News about Environmental Risks”, 18 Science Communication (1997), pp.362–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Siddiq, Ali and Slovic, Paul, “A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit”, 14 Risk Analysis (1994), pp.1085–1096 Google Scholar.

45 Gilmore, John S., “Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Resource Development”, 191 Science (1976), pp.535–540 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

46 de Best-Waldhober, Daamen and Faaij, “Informed and Uninformed Public Opinions on CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies in the Netherlands”, supra, note 12.

47 Fleishman, Lauren A., De Bruin, Wandi Bruine, and Granger Morgan, M., “Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies”, 30 Risk Analysis (2010), pp.1399–1410 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

48 Scherer, Clifford W., McComas, Katherine A., Juanillo, Napoleon, and Pelstring, Lisa, “Promoting Informed Decision-Making: The Role of Message Structure”, 10 Risk: Health, Safety, & Environment (1999), pp.209–220 et sqq., at p. 209Google Scholar.

49 Gunther, Albert C. and Schmitt, Kathleen, “Mapping Boundaries of the Hostile Media Effect”, 54 Journal of Communication (2004), pp.55–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 John Campbell, “In Hydrofracking Debate, Can Science Be Bought?”, 2012, available on the Intneret at <http://www.courier-journal.com/article/CB/20120414/NEWS01/204140318> (last accessed on 07 August 2012).

51 Kenneth M. Klemow, Dale A. Bruns, and Brian Oram, “Institute for Energy and Environmental Research for Northeastern Pennsylvania (IERR)/Wilkes University Commentary on Osborn et al. (2011) article: Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing, Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (vol 108, pages 8172–8176)”, 2012, available on the Internet at <http://energy.wilkes.edu/PDFFiles/IEER%20Commentary/IEER.Osborn.Commentary.pdf> (last accessed 07 August 2012).