Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues

被引:34
作者
Graham, John D. [1 ]
Rupp, John A. [1 ]
Schenk, Olga [1 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Sch Publ & Environm Affairs, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
关键词
Fracking; induced seismicity; public opinion; risk perception; unconventional gas development; water contamination; SHALE GAS; SOCIAL AMPLIFICATION; PERCEIVED RISK; NOXIOUS FACILITIES; OIL; COMPENSATION; OKLAHOMA; PENNSYLVANIA; INJECTION; POLITICS;
D O I
10.1111/risa.12512
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Unconventional gas development (UGD) is growing rapidly in the United States. Drawing on insights from risk perception and risk governance theories and recent public opinion surveys, we find that UGD is an emerging technology that is likely to be perceived as risky, even though objective risk assessments suggest that risks are low and controllable through best risk management practices. Perceived risk varies significantly depending on the state and locality but perceptions of risk appear to be increasing as the technology is used more widely in the United States and as organized opponents of the technology intensify their efforts. Risk perceptions are attenuated somewhat because of the perceived benefits of UGD and compensation schemes for individuals and communities. The types of triggering events necessary for large-scale social amplification and stigmatization have not yet occurred but awareness of UGD is growing and organized opposition has been sufficient to cause prohibitions of UGD in some U.S. states and localities. Additional directions for social science research on public reactions to UGD are recommended.
引用
收藏
页码:1770 / 1788
页数:19
相关论文
共 161 条
  • [11] [Anonymous], 2008, Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World
  • [12] [Anonymous], 2014, WALL STREET J
  • [13] [Anonymous], 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society
  • [14] [Anonymous], NATL J
  • [15] [Anonymous], 2015, EARTHQ OKL COURT CON
  • [16] [Anonymous], FORBES
  • [17] [Anonymous], 2012, WALL STREET J
  • [18] [Anonymous], 2013, The Economist
  • [19] [Anonymous], WALL STREET J
  • [20] [Anonymous], 2013, NEW YORK TIMES