Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking
A Q-method study of environmental discourses
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4141908 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Matthew Cotton (0000-0002-8877-4822, University of Sheffield, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 9 |
| Pages | 1944-1962 |
| Publication date | 2015-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environment and Planning A Economy and Space (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0308-518X • E-ISSN: 1472-3409 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0308518x15597134 |
| OpenAlex | W1921895818 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 31 |
| References cited | 49 |
The rapid expansion of shale gas exploration worldwide is a significant source of environmental controversy. Successful shale gas policy-making is dependent upon a clear understanding of the dynamics of competing stakeholder perspectives on these issues, and so methods are needed to delineate the areas of agreement and conflict that emerge. This empirical study, based in the United Kingdom, examines emergent perspectives on a range of environmental, health and socio-economic impacts associated with shale gas fracking using Q-methodology: a combined qualitative-quantitative approach. The analysis reveals three typologies of perspectives amongst key industry, civil society and non-affiliated citizen stakeholders; subsequently contextualised in relation to Dryzek's typology of environmental discourses. These are labelled (A) 'Don't trust the fossil fuels industry: campaign for renewables' (mediating between sustainable development and democratic pragmatism discourses), (B) 'Shale gas is a bridge fuel: economic growth and environmental scepticism' (mediating between economic rationalism and ecological modernisation discourses) and (C) 'Take place protective action and legislate in the public interest' (reflecting a discourse of administrative rationalism). The implications of these competing discourses for nascent shale gas policy in the UK are discussed in light of recent government public consultation on changes to national planning policy
Civil society · Political science · Politics · Rationalism · Stakeholder · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Law · Public Administration · Q Methodology Applications · Risk Perception and Management
The Routledge Companion to Rural Planning
Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice
Variation in beliefs about ‘fracking’ between the UK and US
Introduction
Mapping Discourses of Climate Change Adaptation in the United Kingdom
“It’s our future.” Youth and fracking justice in England
Fracking and epistemic injustice
David vs. Goliath? Leveraging citizen science in Israel’s energy debates
Petro-riskscapes and environmental distress in West Texas
Holistic narratives of the renovation experience
Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States
Conceptualizations of smart grids –anomalous and contradictory expert paradigms in transitions of the electricity system
Induced seismicity or political ploy
The discursive politics of unconventional gas in Scotland
Reframing decommissioning as energy infrastructural investment
Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate
A conceptual model of the socioeconomic impacts of unconventional fossil fuel extraction
Learning from Lancashire
Fracking and metaphor
Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research
Understanding Difference to Build Bridges among Stakeholders
Q-method and the performance of subjectivity
Fracking Lancashire
Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans
Shale, Quakes, and High Stakes
Exploring discourses in the German forest-based bioeconomy
Plausibility, Acceptability, and Trustworthiness
Governance of energy landscapes between pathways, people and politics
(Re)framing technology
Speculating on shale
Online Qualitative Data Sources for Federal Regulatory Policy Studies
Q Methodology
Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania
Q Methodology
Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom
Using the Language of Nimby
Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations
Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective
The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy—An accessible introduction
Fracking in the UK press
Impossible Sustainability and the Post-political Condition
Analysing Discourse
Critical Discourse Analysis
Estimation of regional air-quality damages from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction in Pennsylvania
Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology
There’s no real choice but to sign
Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the U nited S tates
Toward strategic management of shale gas development
Public Participation as Public Debate
A Q methodological study of rebelliousness
Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking
Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography
Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
European Journal of Social Psychology
Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building
Q Methodology and Qualitative Research
Conventional Politics for Unconventional Drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania's Early Move into Fracking Policy Development
The Relationship between Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania and Local Perceptions of Risk and Opportunity
| Unique citing works | 31 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3,1 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2026 (11) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 31 |